Re: OT (somewhat):US Supreme Court Upholds Ongom; Quackbuster Plan of '96 Foiled

[Guest guest]

WOW, this is great news,I hope they do some serious looking into all

who were involved. the public has a right to know if they are paying

for proper medical help or hogwash.

hopefully the good doctors out there who have stood up for

molds/myco's causeing illness will no longer have to fear getting

drug through hell for it. and the ones who care more about money than

their patients will reconsider why they are where they are

and remember their oath and something called bedside manners. how

those ones sleep at night is beyond me.

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2c@...>

wrote:

>

> US Supreme Court Upholds " Ongom; " Quackbuster " Plan of '96 "

Foiled...

>

> Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

>

> Wednesday, April 25th, 2007

>

> The New York ad agency that actually runs the US " quackbuster "

> operation has to be, this week, taking extra blood-pressure

> medication, avoiding telephone calls from angry clients demanding

to

> know why the " Plan of '96 " isn't going to work as promised, anymore.

>

> Why? Because the State of Washington took the " Ongom " decision to

> the US Supreme Court and that Court UPHELD the Washington Supreme

> Court decision. This is very good for cutting-edge heath

> professionals, and very bad for those trying to stop innovation in

> health care.

>

> For years, nationwide in the US, State Health Boards (Medical,

> Dental, Chiropractic, Psychology, Physical Therapy, etc.), and

> others, would get offers from the " quackbuster " scam operation

> to " help them prosecute cutting-edge health practitioners - for a

> fee. " The " package deal " would include services to help set up

the

> case, write the formal " Accusation " in the most flaming language

> possible, distribute the " Accusation, " with commentary, to the

Press

> so as to ruin the practitioner publicly, and testify as an " expert

> witness " in the hearing. For the " quackbuster " front-men it became

> quite a lucrative cottage industry.

>

> One example, I remember, was when little Bobbie Baratz ( S.

> Baratz MD, DDS, PhD) put a $72,000 package together for the

> Wisconsin Department of Regulation & Licensing (DORL) attacking

> Green Bay MD Eleazar Kadile, his wife, his beliefs, etc. Baratz

was

> blown out of the case when Kadile's strategy/legal team analyzed

> Baratz's Resume/CV and asked the Judge in the case, for a three-

> day " credibility hearing " on Baratz. The Judge granted the

hearing -

> and that was the end of the case. Baratz sank himself with his

own

> testimony. It was fun to watch. You can read about that day by

> clicking here.

>

> So, what does this have to do with " Ongom? " And what's " Ongom? "

>

> " Ongom, " or in its full case name, " Ongom v. State of Washington

> Department of Health, Office of Professional Standards. " is the

most

> important Court decision in the history of " Administrative Law " in

> the United States. Why? Because it changed the rules, making it

> much tougher for State prosecutors to harass health, or any

> licensed, or unlicensed, professionals by using, and abusing, the

> system. Much, much, tougher. In short, it changed the " level of

> evidence " required to discipline professionals.

>

> How? Like this - There are three levels of evidence standards used

> in the US Court System. From the lowest to the highest they read

> like this: (1) " Preponderance of Evidence, " (2) " Clear and

> Convincing Evidence, " and (3) " Evidence Beyond a Reasonable

> Doubt. " Generally, the first two are used in Civil Court cases,

> whereas the last is used in Criminal Court cases.

>

> For years the " Preponderance of Evidence " standard was used in

State

> Administrative law hearings. But since " Ongom " that's no longer

> permitted. The higher standard, the " Clear and Convincing

Evidence "

> standard must be used. What's the difference? A lot.

>

> Black's Law Dictionary defines " Preponderance of Evidence " as " The

> greater weight of the evidence; superior evidentiary weight that,

> though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable

> doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to

> one side of the issue instead of the other. This is the burden of

> proof in a civil trial, in which the jury is instructed to find for

> the party, that on the whole, has the stronger evidence, however

> slight the edge may be. "

>

> Then, Black's Law Dictionary defines " Clear and Convincing

Evidence "

> as " Evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly

> probable or reasonably certain. This is a greater burden than

> preponderance of the evidence, the standard applied in most civil

> trials, but less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the norm

> for criminal trials. "

>

> But what does this mean, practically, for health

> professionals?

>

> Well, for one thing, it means that, as of April 23, 2007, the date

> of the US Supreme Court decision in " Ongom, " anything, and

> everything, on quackwatch.com is not usable in a State

> Administrative Hearing - nor can it be used even to bring charges,

> or an accusation against a health professional. A prosecutor, a

> Board, or State employee, knowingly using such unacceptable

evidence

> is risking their personal assets, for such an action can, and

> should, be used to breach their " immunity. "

>

> A Defendant, or Respondent, has every right, now, to go after the

> State if they use quackwatch drivel. Why? Two reasons: (1) There

> is no " science " in quackwatch offerings. Hence, there is no valid

> information. So, it can't make the evidence standard. (2) Barrett,

> himself, has been officially declared, in a PUBLISHED Appeals court

> decision, to be " biased, and unworthy of credibility. "

>

> For another thing, it means that no " quackbuster " bozo can have

> anything to do with an Administrative hearing anymore. They no

> longer have the qualifications to offer anything at hearing. And

> THAT means that those of you out there that may be currently " being

> investigated " have a new move on your chessboard. It's this - Send

> an immediate Public Record Act request to the

> department " investigating " you. Demand that they provide you with

> any, and all, communications with (1) Barrett and

> quackwatch.com, (2) the Federation of State Medical Boards, or

> (3) anyone outside of their own organization on the subject they

> are " investigating " you for. They are required by law to give you

> this information. If you find any of that - go after the so-called

> Investigator for " due process " violations immediately.

>

> Stay tuned...

>

> Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate

>

[Guest guest]

I think that in the last year we have reached a tipping point of sorts and

more and more people are standing up to these goon squads and winning.

Perhaps it was the response to Hurricane Katrina or something, but more and

more people seem to realize that there are some very real, unaddressed

dangers out there that are not getting the public health attention they

deserve, indeed, are being swept under the rug at all of our peril.

Did you see how many doctors (and others!) wrote angry letters to the AAAAI

in their journal in response to their position paper?

>hopefully the good doctors out there who have stood up for

molds/myco's causeing illness will no longer have to fear getting

drug through hell for it.

[Guest guest]

no I haven't seen them.

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> I think that in the last year we have reached a tipping point of

sorts and

> more and more people are standing up to these goon squads and

winning.

>

> Perhaps it was the response to Hurricane Katrina or something, but

more and

> more people seem to realize that there are some very real,

unaddressed

> dangers out there that are not getting the public health attention

they

> deserve, indeed, are being swept under the rug at all of our peril.

>

> Did you see how many doctors (and others!) wrote angry letters to

the AAAAI

> in their journal in response to their position paper?

>

>

>

> >hopefully the good doctors out there who have stood up for

> molds/myco's causeing illness will no longer have to fear getting

> drug through hell for it.

>

>

>