Lyme Disease - Kathleen asks for your help.

Author

Kathleen asks for your help.

Greatcod

2004-10-27, 11:07 am

Kathleen asks Lyme Activists to support the RICO investigation she has
requested from US Attorney Kevin O'Conner. Briefly, she charges that
Yale people orchestrated the change in the Western Blot diagnostic
criteria at Dearborne in 1993.
Several common bands were removed from the WB diagnostic profile; this
was done in order to promote the developemnt of a vaccine which would
financially benefit both Yale and its drug company partners.....THE
CONSEQUENCE was that
Lyme became almost undetectable by WB blood tests. We are the victims,
us and countless thousands whose infection was hard or impossible to
diagnose by non-LLD's, any doctor who trusted the accuracy of the new
profile.
PLEASE CALL these people and let them know you support further RICO
investigation. You don't have to argue the case, you don't have to
tell your story. Just say you support further action. Perhaps you will
only speak with a secretary, or leave a recorded message...That's
fine. No one is asking you to argue the biology. CALL:
US Attorney Kevin O'Conner--203-821-3700
Attorney Nora Danehy-- 860-947-1101
Thanks

Frank de Groot

2004-10-27, 11:07 am

"Greatcod" <Greatcod@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

I have forwarded the request (with some translation & explanation) to the
Netherland's largest Lyme message board.

Perhaps British, Germans & French can do the same?
The imperialist fascist Yanks usually don't give a XXXX about international
opinion, but who knows.

derdrittemann

2004-10-28, 11:08 am

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410270731.1c03326e@posting.google.com>...

> "You don't have to argue the case, you don't have to
> tell your story. Just say you support further action. Perhaps you will
> only speak with a secretary, or leave a recorded message...That's
> fine. No one is asking you to argue the biology".

Well...if they ask you WHY you are bringing this to their
attention...WHAT are you supposed to say?

The US attorney prosecutes (notice that word..."prosecutes")...FEDERAL
crimes.

Assuming everything Kathleen has said is true, concerning the
development of the Lymerix vaccine...what in there IS A CRIME?

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING IS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?

I have been asking this QUESTION for almost an entire year now...and
have received NO answers.

In other words, while something may well be disastrous public
policy...that does NOT, in and of itself, constitute a "crime".

Likewise, the intent to profit from a vaccine...does not constitiute a
crime...in and of itself.

What is the crime being alleged?

ANYONE?

Last night, pieces of the moon seemed to disappear. Then they just as
mysteriously reappeared.

Why don't you ask the US attorney to investigate THAT?

(I think the Morgellons did it).

derdrittemann

2004-10-28, 11:08 am

"Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote in message news:<rEPfd.4028$Km6.94173@news4.e.nsc.no>...
> "Greatcod" <Greatcod@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> "I have forwarded the request (with some translation & explanation) to the
> Netherland's largest Lyme message board.
>
> Perhaps British, Germans & French can do the same?
> The imperialist fascist Yanks usually don't give a XXXX about international
> opinion, but who knows".

Is this the SAME Kathleen M. Dickson that you said was a "NUTCASE"?

Along with Lisa...who you described as "whacky"?

No, Frank, I'm sure the US attorney will be absolutely fascinated to
hear your little comrades' interpretations of American criminal
statutes.

I'm sure he has nothing better to do.

Greatcod

2004-10-28, 7:09 pm

I'm guessing you didn't get the judgeship.
Yale threw away the baby so they could sell the bathwater, that is,
they
severely compromised the WB diagnostic standard in order to promote a
vaccine enterprise that would enrich the university and its private
sector partners.
The consequence was undiagnosed irreversable brain infection in
countless thousands.
Yeah, I know, Yale sits at the right hand of God and can do no wrong.
On the other hand, it graduated Christian Facist George W. Bush.
Jesus, if that's not a crime, what is?

derdrittemann

2004-10-29, 11:08 am

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410281605.59e238bf@posting.google.com>...

"Jesus, if that's not a crime, what is"?

So...you don't know?...that's your answer?

You ask your fellow Lyme sufferers to "take action"...yet you have NO
idea what you are asking them to do?

Don't you think that is just a little IRRESPONSIBLE?

Think about this...

....ever look at Kathleen's "complaint"?

(It really isn't a "complaint", in the usual legalese sense of that
word...but merely a form which she filled out...sort of...complaining
about certain indiviuals and actions).

There is a line there where there is a question as to whether the
person's attorney was aware of the charges being made. (Kathleen
didn't answer).

Do you have any idea WHY that question is being asked? Any guesses?

What advice would you give to a Lymie who has followed your
wishes...and is asked,..."are you saying that these individuals have
committed Federal crimes"?
"Are you referring these people on Ms. Dickson's list to us for
prosecution"?

Do you think it is possible that IF the office begins to
investigate...the named individuals will then be made aware of who it
is that is saying these things about them? Have you considered
whatever private rights of action these individuals may have?

What should they say? ("Oh, I don't know...a fish on the internet told
me to say this")?

HOW is this supposed to HELP Kathleen, by the way? What in the HELL
good could this activity possibly do for her? The US attorney is an
APPOINTED, not ELECTIVE position. The person is appointed to exercise
their independent legal judgment...despite the pressure of the popular
will.

What in the hell good do you think it is to try to tell the US
attorney what to do in the first place?

We have these things called: LAWS. They are written down in books. We
DO NOT make the rules up as we go along. The reason we write these
things down is so people will be on notice as to what activities are
legal...what are considered illegal.

As I have said previously...just because something was a BAD public
policy decision...and had adverse consequences for many...THAT DOES
NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL.

Things that Kathleen M. Dickson thinks are "bad" are NOT necessarily,
illegal.

There just isn't a law concerning the removal of OspA from the
research and surveillance critieria. So, if you, or anyone else, wants
to maintain that this was somehow illegal...

....then you have to demonstrate how the facts of what happened fit
into a definition of some other known and established crime...or
pattern of crimes.

WHAT is IT?

I assume since you are asking people to do this...you can provide the
answer.

And NO...it is NOT an answer to attack either me or Yale or George
Bush.

YOU are asking people to take specific action.

YOU have a responsibility to provide SPECIFIC answers.

derdrittemann

2004-10-30, 2:07 am

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410291409.3fdbbc7@posting.google.com>...

> "I gather that the laws violated in a RICO case generally start with
> wire
> and mail fraud. Communication among the perps.
> Are you trying to argue that science cannot be criminal unless the
> specific scientific processes or procedures involved are forbiden by
> statute? Geez".

Are you saying that a "wire fraud" or "mail fraud" was committed?

Greg Gerber

2004-10-30, 11:07 am

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410292023.5b5f860f@posting.google.com>...
> Are you saying that a "wire fraud" or "mail fraud" was committed?

this is exactly the point. There is NO EVIDENCE of a conspiracy. No
written evidence, no digital and electronic evidence, no wire and mail
evidence. Kathleen has a great failure to connect the dots here.

Act: Osps A and B were removed from the Dearborn criteria.
Rationale for this: The Dressler Study.
A side benefit: It was easier to avoid the confusion of serodiagnosis
for those vaccinated with the OspA vaccine.

But nowhere is there ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that anyone ever
conspired to commit the ACT for the SIDE BENEFIT. It is not enough to
say that people understood the side benefit; of course they did. But
there is the issue of the Dressler study. THAT was not a fraud, just a
flawed study --they relied on it. Okay so they're stupid,
narrow-minded, a lot of bad things. It doesn't make them criminals in
the eyes of the law.

Kathleen cannot prove and has not EVER shown ANY EVIDENCE that a
group of people sat in a room and said (let alone mailed it or
conspired through telephones) that they KNEW they were going to let
many more progress to late Lyme with their new Dearborn standard but
had to do it to facilitate the OspA vaccine. Without proof of this
there is no crime, and no rico.

Such proof would be the smoking gun. If you could find evidence that
this plan was sent through the mail or communicated over the telephone
it would be RICO. But Kathleen has NO EVIDENCE that this happened. It
is just a leap on her part, a connecting of the dots without proof.
She has never supplied a single drop of evidence to connect the ACT
with the SIDE BENEFIT: The missing link is just her assumption, and
Kathleen Dickson's assumption does not RICO make.

Gregory Gerber

A_Weisman

2004-10-30, 7:08 pm

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0410300505.e800d41@posting.google.com>...
> derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410292023.5b5f860f@posting.google.com>...
>
> this is exactly the point. There is NO EVIDENCE of a conspiracy. No
> written evidence, no digital and electronic evidence, no wire and mail
> evidence. Kathleen has a great failure to connect the dots here.

Kathleen and her enablers don't have the first clue what they're
talking about when it comes to the law.

Not only is there no evidence of a conspiracy, but the specific
requirements of the RICO statute require proof of "predicate acts" in
order to provide a basis for a civil or criminal RICO case. A RICO
conspiracy is different than a normal conspiracy.

And though I disagree with the view of Lyme promulgated by Allen
Steere, the doctors at Yale, Lenny Sigal, SUNY Stoneybrook, the ALDF
and the IDSA, that difference of opinion, no matter how profound,
doesn't mean that I think for a nanosecond that there is a shred of
evidence of a conspiracy or of RICO.

Furthermore, since I know a little bit about Lyme disease and have,
like you, read the medical and scientific literature extensively, I
know that kathleen doesn't possess any real insights into the science
or medicine of Lyme disease.

The fact that she posted a number of abstracts and articles on her
website doesn't mean anything. The fact that she uses medical and
scientific terms that other people don't understand (her followers)
doesn't mean she was making any sense.

For the most part she wasn't.

The fact is that sadly she is and was seriously mentally ill. The
sadder fact is that other people accepted and encouraged her
delusions. The even sadder fact is that they continue to do so.

None of what she is asking for can possibly help her in her current
situation. In fact, quite the opposite, it can only continue to hurt
her.

She was warned that she would end up exactly where she has ended up.
She has done tremendous harm to the already dubious credibility of
Lymeland.

Those who have encouraged her have actually hurt her and hurt the
cause of Lyme patients immeasurably.

At least kathleen had an excuse. Profound mental illness.

The others? Well profound stupidity but that isn't an excuse since
they were told by people who knew better and refuse to listen.

If anyone here wants to help kathleen they need to refuse to do what
she is asking.

God--it is amazing to see her complaining that her ex husband won't
bring the kids to see her. After what she said to them about him? Why
would he? And she can only damage her children further until she
improves. The fact that she continues with all of her delusions shows
how profound the mental illness is. It obviously hasn't responded to
treatment.

We always said she's need intensive therapy.

> Act: Osps A and B were removed from the Dearborn criteria.
> Rationale for this: The Dressler Study.
> A side benefit: It was easier to avoid the confusion of serodiagnosis
> for those vaccinated with the OspA vaccine.
>
> But nowhere is there ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that anyone ever
> conspired to commit the ACT for the SIDE BENEFIT. It is not enough to
> say that people understood the side benefit; of course they did. But
> there is the issue of the Dressler study. THAT was not a fraud, just a
> flawed study --they relied on it. Okay so they're stupid,
> narrow-minded, a lot of bad things. It doesn't make them criminals in
> the eyes of the law.

Yes but I'm curious why even bother addressing the details? Kathleen's
RICO theories are nonsense, legally, medically, scientifically,
logically and in every other way.

Greatcod knows even less about the law than about most things. He is a
jedi master of ignorance. He is accomplished in his ignorance.

> Kathleen cannot prove and has not EVER shown ANY EVIDENCE that a
> group of people sat in a room and said (let alone mailed it or
> conspired through telephones) that they KNEW they were going to let
> many more progress to late Lyme with their new Dearborn standard but
> had to do it to facilitate the OspA vaccine. Without proof of this
> there is no crime, and no rico.

Even if there were proof of that it almost certainly wouldn't be a
crime or a conspiracy in the legal sense much less RICO which is a
special type of conspiracy and crime.

> Such proof would be the smoking gun. If you could find evidence that
> this plan was sent through the mail or communicated over the telephone
> it would be RICO.

No it wouldn't greg. While it might be "criminal" in the sense of
morality and ethics, it probably isn't a crime.

And to the extent that people acted on their opinions, even if wrong,
it would never be a crime.

It might be criminally STUPID but if being stupid were a crime,
greatcod for example would be on death row.

>But Kathleen has NO EVIDENCE that this happened. It
> is just a leap on her part, a connecting of the dots without proof.
> She has never supplied a single drop of evidence to connect the ACT
> with the SIDE BENEFIT: The missing link is just her assumption, and
> Kathleen Dickson's assumption does not RICO make.
>
> Gregory Gerber

No and even with the proof you suggest, it still wouldn't be RICO.

Maybe RICO suave.

derdrittemann

2004-10-30, 7:08 pm

Greg Gerber

2004-10-31, 7:07 am

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0410301515.336d06f5@posting.google.com>...
> Maybe RICO suave.

Weisman, ROFLMAO I stand corrected, even with proof it would be RICO
suave. I am not an attorney, that's for sure. But I am curious, what
would it take to make this RICO? Is there a scenario? Tell a little
story here. Thanks GG

derdrittemann

2004-10-31, 11:07 am

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410300741.6a2e7811@posting.google.com>...

> "Possibly..."

WHAT?

"Possibly"?... YOU MEAN YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

You need to have some EVIDENCE of a crime being committed before you
start encouraging others to contact law enforcement and complain that
others are guilty of certain crimes.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

"Look at the adverse consequences of taking the most
> important bands out of the WB diagnositic picture--lots of infections
> missed".

FOR HOPEFULLY, (although I doubt it) THE LAST FRIGGIN' TIME...

The WB bands were removed (that is, OspA and OspB) from RESEARCH and
SURVEILLANCE critieria...

....NOT DIAGNOSTIC critieria. Kathleen apparently NEVER understood this
VERY basic distinction and how it affected her "theory". She didn't
even understand what she was talking about.

In other words, the modified critieria were NOT supposed to be used to
diagnose the disease.

Again, the fact that certain people may have been injured does not
necessarily make an act a CRIME.(Misdiagnosis, for instance, is
medical malpractice...negligence...and not RICO...and NOT a CRIME).

(The injured party...if they can show that their injuries flowed from
the act...might, for instance, be able to recover damages in civil
suit).

"Was there mail
> or wire communication between the players indicating awareness of
> that?--or communication discussing the dollars invested and returns
> expected"?

This is unbelievable. By phrasing this as a question, however, it
indicates that you don't know. We are NOT talking about a "fishing
expedition" here. The US Attorney is primarily a prosecutorial, NOT
investigative office. You just don't accuse people of crime in this
country without some evidence.

Where have you been for the last YEAR? We have been over and over
this.

All of the actions concerning the "Dearborn conference" are a matter
of PUBLIC record.

Do you understand?

NOW...WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF "WIRE FRAUD" OR "MAIL FRAUD"?

> "The use of the mails and wires in the commission of crime is itself a
> crime".

WHAT CRIME?

WHAT USE OF MAILS and WIRES?

YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You have to have EVIDENCE...reasonable grounds to believe a crime has
been committed before the government can start investigating people
for the commission of an alleged crime!!!

derdrittemann

2004-10-31, 7:09 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410300741.6a2e7811@posting.google.com>...

> "Possibly..."

"POSSIBLY"? ROFLMAO! You need just a LITTLE more than "possibly",
there, Fish!

"Look at the adverse consequences of taking the most
> important bands out of the WB diagnositic picture--lots of infections
> missed".

FOR HOPEFULLY THE LAST TIME...

....the "removal" of OspA and B were done from the RESEARCH and
SURVEILLANCE critieria NOT the diagnostic CRITIERIA.

The "modified" critieria were NOT intended as diagnostic tools. The
great Lyme Martyr apparently either never understood...or bothered to
consider the impact of that distinction on her grandiose legal
strategy.

"Was there mail
> or wire communication between the players indicating awareness of
> that?--or communication discussing the dollars invested and returns
> expected"?

DON'T YOU KNOW?

LOL. We are talking about EVIDENCE here. Reason to suspect that a
crime has been committed. We don't just accuse people of crimes and
then hope we can turn up the evidence against them in the course of
the litigation. Good Lord.
>
"The use of the mails and wires in the commission of crime is itself a
> crime".

AND...where is the evidence of this "wire" or "mail" fraud? WHAT CRIME
are you talking about?

You cannot possibly be suggesting that you can use "mail fraud" to
establish a RICO case...

....and establish the "mail fraud" by asserting it was in pursuit of
the RICO case.

Do you even understand what you have to establish in order to pursue a
case for "fraud"?

Frank de Groot

2004-10-31, 7:09 pm

"derdrittemann" <derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Again, the fact that certain people may have been injured does not
> necessarily make an act a CRIME.(Misdiagnosis, for instance, is
> medical malpractice...negligence...and not RICO...and NOT a CRIME).

False.
Only when the misdiagnosis is result of a mistake or crappy medical
education.

When a misdiagnosis is done intentionally for personal gain, knowing full
well that the patient has an increased chance of damage to health, it
becomes a crime.

Greatcod

2004-10-31, 7:09 pm

I don't speak for Kathleen... so this is my take. The diagnostic
standard was changed to facilitate an enterprise that required
substantial investment, and which promised substantial return. I
wonder if the pharmaceutical partners were in any way involved in
that? The change in the diagnostic standard caused great harm to many
people whose illnesses were not diagnosed, that is, there is a class
of victims who are entitled to know if, or when, the organizations
became aware of the consequences of the change in WB standards, and
what actions, if any, were taken to correct the mistake.
Additionally, Dresler-Steere referenced only one immune
sub-group, and had no demonstrated validity for the larger population
of patients.
It sort of haunts me that in 93/94 Lyme was presented as an easy
to diagnose, easy to treat minor illness that was widely
overdiagnosed……Why make a vaccine for that?
I don't believe that a complaintent has to prove the crime, but
only to allege it. It then becomes the job of Law Enforcement to
investigate the allegation, to evaluate its credibility. (I would
inject here that Kathleen's professional status enhances the
credibility of the allegation.)
The process broadens until someone is charged or the allegation
dismissed.
Nobody has ever RICOd a major university, or even a
pharmaceutical company.
I guess that's because they are so pure in their pursuit of
scientific truth and human wellbeing.

A_Weisman

2004-10-31, 7:09 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message
news:<caef409e.0410300741.6a2e7811@posting.google.com>...
> Possibly...Look at the adverse consequences of taking the most
> important bands out of the WB diagnositic picture--lots of infections
> missed. Was there mail
> or wire communication between the players indicating awareness of
> that?--or communication discussing the dollars invested and returns
> expected?

LOL You really need to use a lifeline here fishshitforbrains.

Where is "lots of infections missed" a crime? What crime is it? Is the
crime a RICO predicate act? Is there an "enterprise" as defined by the
RICO statute?

All of your wildest imaginings, even if true, are still closer to RICO
suave than racketeering in corrput organizations.

See the first problem is that you don't know what you're talking about
when it comes to the science and medicine.

The second is that you know even less about the law.

The third is that your paranoiac interpretations of events don't
amount to "facts" much less evidence.

The fourth is that all of you (lisa, the lisa impersonators, the lisa
sock puppets, kathleen and her many personalities) put together know
close to nothing about all of this.

The biggest problem is that you have sent countless Lymies off on wild
RICO chases.

I guess you'll all be sitting in the RICO patch waiting for the
arrival of the great RICO suave pumpkin tonight.

> The use of the mails and wires in the commission of crime is itself a
> crime.

The problem is that there needs to be an underlying crime.

The fact that all of you disagree with the prevailing view about the
diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease doesn't mean that those you
disagree with have committed crimes in the legal sense.

And by the way there is a little thing called "sovereign immunity" so
when the ASTPHLD/CDC adapts a diagnostic standard acting in an
official capacity, there's a little stumbling block legally to any of
your otherwise meritless legal fantasies.

See you don't have and couldn't buy a clue here even if you had a
million dollar clue buying fund.

A_Weisman

2004-10-31, 7:09 pm

A_Weisman

2004-10-31, 7:09 pm

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0410310456.13285406@posting.google.com>...
> a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0410301515.336d06f5@posting.google.com>...
>
> Weisman, ROFLMAO I stand corrected, even with proof it would be RICO
> suave. I am not an attorney, that's for sure. But I am curious, what
> would it take to make this RICO? Is there a scenario? Tell a little
> story here. Thanks GG

(I hit "send" prematurely so excuse the partially duplicative post):

Greg I think I'm fairly imaginative but I can't spin out a story how
this would be RICO.

I can tell you a few of the problems.

In order to be RICO, there needs to be a pattern of crimes called
"predicate acts." Those are specifically enumerated in the RICO
statute, they can't just be any crime in the crimes code.

There needs to be an "enterprise" as defined in the statute.

And a RICO conspiracy is not the same as a violation of the RICO
statute. A pattern of crimes can violate RICO and/or be a RICO
conspiracy.

However, to be a conspiracy there needs to be an agreement to achieve
a criminal purpose.

Not only that but when it comes to the matter of the Dearborn
criteria, since it was adapted by the CDC/ASTPHLD there would be a
problem with sovereign immunity.

The biggest problem is that, while you and I (and sir der and others)
might disagree with the prevailing views concerning lyme diagnosis and
treatment, what is being complained about predominately amounts to a
difference of opinion, not a criminal enterprise.

And our opinion is in the distinct minority. And is poorly documented.
(by our opinion I mean the burrascano style of diagnosis and
treatment; the "llmd" approach).

Not only does this mean that there is no crime but also that we'd
never be able to prove it even if there was. The weight of authority
is against us. The most respected and highly credentialed doctors and
scientists in the field agree with each other and disagree with us.
Sure at the margins they might acknowledge the possibility that
infection persists and even that longer term treatment might
occasionally be appropriate. They might acknowledge problems with the
tests. But they have their own views and are entitled to them.

Being wrong isn't a crime.

Or fishshitforbrains and lisa and her many sock puppets and
impersonators and kathleen would be on death row for their criminal
stupidity in so many areas including getting everyone agitated about
all this RICO nonsense.

And the Steere yale sigal aldf idsa approach is filled with caveats.
They don't say the testing is good (although they think the problem is
false positives not false negatives). They admit it is a clinical
diagnosis. But they don't mean that most clinicians can be trusted to
make it properly and they don't agree on the criteria used by
burrascano and the llmds.

But it is not a crime that science hasn't yet yielded a perfect or
close to perfect or even reliable or close to reliable test. Or that
antibiotics don't seem to cure all cases.

In all of it they could be 100% wrong and not criminals. And they're
not 100% wrong. Nor are the llmds 100% right. There's some truth to
the approach taken by each side.

And all of this sound and fury about RICO signifies nothing of any
substance or meaning in the real world.

PS: Lisa and lisa impersonators I'm not going to waste my time
responding to distortions of what I've said. I'm not in the "steere
camp" I don't hate llmds and the views that you attribute to me are
not mine. I'm beyond tired of responding to accusations based on
things I never said. I believe Lyme is often misdiagnosed and often
undertreated. Conversely in some cases it may be overdiagnosed and
overtreated too. It ain't all black and white and none of your
nonsense is any way important or helpful or worth responding to and
I'm done with it and you. I'll only converse with those making sense
and they're few and far between here, pretty much limited to sir der
and greg and rita who I haven't seen post in forever.

Frank, I read your nonsense. You're no more a lawyer than you are an
expert on tropical and infectious diseases. And you're obviously
sociopathic and insane.

Sorry but it is true.

And by the way to my favorite martijn, the thing you posted about
false accusations attributes many statements to me that I never made.
It was nonsense, a total distortion and not helpful except as an
example of how people never seem to get it straight.

Peace love and defeat george bush!

derdrittemann

2004-10-31, 10:07 pm

"Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote in message news:<7Aahd.4444$rh1.120792@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> "derdrittemann" <derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> "False.
> Only when the misdiagnosis is result of a mistake or crappy medical
> education".
> When a misdiagnosis is done intentionally for personal gain, knowing full
> well that the patient has an increased chance of damage to health, it
> becomes a crime".

REALLY!!!

Fascinating.

No doubt you can enlighten us all by referring us to the appropriate
statute which spells out this heretofore unknown "crime"? LMAO! Please
remember here...we are talking about the law of the United States of
America.

Frank...the prefix "mis" means incorrect...as in MIStaken. Wrong. So
far as I understand the term...and as I used it...MISdiagnosis means a
MIStaken diagnosis...an error. Negligence.

When you are talking about the commission of crimes...you usually wind
up in a discussion of "scienter"...the mental intent...what was the
mental status of the defendant...did he/she intend that the act
committed lead to the result that it did.

Proving "intentional" false diagnosis...that a physician KNEW what the
patient's real condition was...would be virtually impossible, in all
but the most bizarre of cases.

What you seem to be saying is that a physician could have knowledge of
a correct diagnosis and then lie to the patient...which somehow
results in profit(?)!

Where are you getting this crap from? How does this work? You make an
intentional false diagnosis...and get rewarded for that? By whom?

I have really never heard of an "intentional mistaken" diagnosis
before.

Does it ever bother you that you are very obviously spouting total and
complete nonsense about something which you know virtually nothing
about?

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

I look forward to your directing me to this most interesting statute.

derdrittemann

2004-11-01, 2:08 am

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0410310456.13285406@posting.google.com>...
> a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0410301515.336d06f5@posting.google.com>...
>
> Weisman, ROFLMAO I stand corrected, even with proof it would be RICO
> suave. I am not an attorney, that's for sure. But I am curious, what
> would it take to make this RICO? Is there a scenario? Tell a little
> story here. Thanks GG

Greg...(I know this was addressed to Weisman...but allow me to make a
point or two here, also).

There is both a criminal RICO statute...and a private, civil, right of
action within that statute.

What seems to have happened here, reconstructing, is that Kathleen met
with CIVIL, private attorneys...who advised her that a civil RICO suit
might be an option, but it would require a "mountain of lawyers".
Please remember here, that they were offering advice based on what
Kathleen told them about what had happened.

Not having been in the room myself, I still think I can pretty well
understand what was being said based on what Kathleen reported.
Many...(what I would consider to be less than reputable attorneys)...
see a civil RICO action as an avenue of attack that would otherwise be
barred, a last-ditch catch-all wastebasket grab. They can allege a
"mail fraud" or "wire fraud" and then take enormous amounts of
discovery...interrogatories, requests to produce documents...in a
"cross-your- fingers" attempt to find something, anything, that will
advance their case. This is why they referred to a "mountain of
attorneys".

The standards differ, however, between the civil action and the
standards under which the government may take up a criminal action.
The government must meet strict Constitutional standards...and will
usually, as I understand it...prefer to prosecute the simple mail
fraud charge than a vast criminal conspiracy that is really the
intended target of the RICO statute.

Apparently, because of the enormous cost involved in filing a civil
RICO action, Kathleen, as she, herself, said, "tossed it to the Feds".
She just blissfully thought they'd take from there, I
guess...completely unaware that the standards would be completely
different...or that the Feds would have little interest in the bizarre
fantasies of Ms. Dickson as Lyme martyr and champion crusader.

Unfortunately, that isn't the way it works...but it does sort of
explain why she and some of her adherents seem to think they can just
allege wrongdoing and prove it all later without any evidence whatever
to justify their claims.

In my opinion, what Weisaman says is correct. It is just very, very
difficult to imagine a RICO situation given the facts here. The sad
fact is, also, as he points out...that Kathleen never understood WHAT
was changed at Dearborn or how it impacts on the entire controversy.

What one should look for, in my opinion, before even considering ANY
sort of criminal charge...would be the KNOWING fabrication or
falsification of data...and then submitting that to the Federal
government. Now...you may have something there.(This is all just
speculation, here...I know of no such instance...and am merely using
it as an example).

But you need EVIDENCE. NOT speculation.

BUT...the difficulty there is in PROVING that the data was KNOWINGLY,
deliberately falsified.

Tough to do.

Greg Gerber

2004-11-01, 2:08 am

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410310924.5ae766c0@posting.google.com>...
> ...the "removal" of OspA and B were done from the RESEARCH and
> SURVEILLANCE critieria NOT the diagnostic CRITIERIA.

Derdritteman, you are incorrect here. Dearborn has been endorsed by
the Food and Drug Adminstration for serodiagnosis as well. This is in
addition to and apart from its enfranchisement by CDC for
surveillance. In addition, FDA and CDC approved what became the
Dearborn criteria prior to the Dearborn meeting as the diagnostic
standard in the vaccine trials.

Please do not confuse the serodiagnostic standard of Dearborn with the
CDC disease definition. The disease definition was approved for
surveillance and research. The Dearborn criteria have been
incorporated into the CDC disease definition but exist outside it as
well, for other uses and in other contexts, as mentioned above.

Do not take my word for this, but check yourself. You will find
reference to all this by reading the transcripts of the various
committee meetings on Lyme disease from the time periods mentioned.
You can also check by calling the agencies involved or the scientists
who had seats on the committee meetings, and even by reading the
guidelines for serodiagnosis of Lyme (different than the idsa
treatment guidelines.)

I assure you that I am right on this and you are not --please don't
argue with me before checking out what I say. You will find I am
correct. It still isn't RICO of course, but unless you understand what
I have said, above, you cannot appreciate the extent of the damage
done.

Gregory Gerber

Frank de Groot

2004-11-01, 7:07 am

"derdrittemann" <derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> No doubt you can enlighten us all by referring us to the appropriate
> statute which spells out this heretofore unknown "crime"? LMAO! Please
> remember here...we are talking about the law of the United States of
> America.

First of all, "we" are not talking about some insignificant law of some
rogue terrorist state.
We are talking about laws of democratic countries in general.

Now, how intentional misdiagnosis works in practice varies.
In the Netherlands, every MD has a contract (his organization has
bulk-contracts with health insurers).

This contract stipulates that he is not allowed to diagnose more than the
country average, not to treat more agressive than the country average, etc.

Those are contracts that fly in the face of medical common sense.
Those contracts are financial contracts made by bookkeepers.

Any MD that signs such a contract has signed the evidence to condemn him for
intentional misdiagnosis and intentional maltreatment.

In the US is may go more subtly.
In the US, things work more with violence, assassinations, mass brain
washing, disappearances, secret police, such things.
In those cases, like Dr. Burrascano's case, a MD knows (from disappearing or
incarcerated colleagues) that if correctly diagnoses, he will be subjected
to devastating lawsuits attacking his general medical practice.

Why was Burrascano subjected to confiscation of his medical files, search of
his practice, lawsuit?

It still is a crime, to bow to pressure from financial interests. MD's who
bow to financial pressure and terrorist intimidation are themselves guilty
of a crime when this leads to intentional misdiagnosis or intentional
mistreatment.

Any MD can be assumed to know the basics about infectious diseases,
antibiotics and diagnostic tests vs. clinical diagnoses. A MD that chooses
to ignore these for fear of his own person (lawsuits, public character
defamation) is a CRIMINAL when this leads to the death of a patient. Period.
In any country, even in your failed state.

A_Weisman

2004-11-01, 7:07 am

Greatcod

2004-11-01, 11:08 am

Can anyone pick out two recent graduates of the Rush Limbaugh School
of Law and Science? Hint, hint, their last names end in the signgular
and plural of what they pretend to be.

Frank de Groot

2004-11-01, 11:08 am

"Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote in message
news:S%ohd.4867$Km6.127169@news4.e.nsc.no...

> In the US, things work more with violence, assassinations, mass brain
> washing, disappearances, secret police, such things.
> In those cases, like Dr. Burrascano's case, a MD knows (from disappearing
or
> incarcerated colleagues) that if correctly diagnoses, he will be subjected
> to devastating lawsuits attacking his general medical practice.

I forgot to mention the world-renowned microbiologist Lida Mattman who
developed a 100% accurate test for Lyme.
She was told by unidentified men in suits that "When you don't close your
laboratory, you and your family will regret it dearly".

She complied.

Greg Gerber

2004-11-01, 11:08 am

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410310924.5ae766c0@posting.google.com>...
> ...the "removal" of OspA and B were done from the RESEARCH and
> SURVEILLANCE critieria NOT the diagnostic CRITIERIA.

Actually Derdritteman you are incorrect, and appear to be confusing
the case definition --of which the Dearborn criteria is a part-- with
the stand-alone, dual purpose utility of the criteria itself. The FDA
also approved the Dearborn criteria as the stand-alone standard for
Lyme serodiagnosis. And in addition, prior to the Dearborn meeting in
October 1994, Smithkline met with FDA, CDC and its lead investigator,
Steere, and adopted the Dresler research (which later became Dearborn)
as the serodiatnostic standard for the vaccine trials. The same
standard was thereafter grandfathered in, more or less intact (at
least for IgG) at Dearborn itself.

NONE of this makes it RICO --or a crime, but it is a significantly
different from what you are contending, and it is a difference that is
important. This is why so much damage was done.

Please, before you start arguing with me over this, check it out
yourself. You will find I am correct here. GG

Gregory Gerber

Greatcod

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

Another consideration about Dearborne would involve how commercial
labs that
offered Lyme WBs changed, or didn't change, their diagnostic profiles.
Sorry to offer another heresy, but the Primary Care doctors do tend to
just read the lab's interpretation of the results. Sort of like "6
bands you got it, less than 3 you don't, and in between is a maybe".
Its not like the docs have the most recent acceptable bands in their
heads, or written on the cuffs of their shirts.

A_Weisman

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

"Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote in message news:<S%ohd.4867$Km6.127169@news4.e.nsc.no>...
> "derdrittemann" <derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> First of all, "we" are not talking about some insignificant law of some
> rogue terrorist state.
> We are talking about laws of democratic countries in general.

No Frank. Fishshitforbrains and kathloon were talking about a specific
law, though they don't have and couldn't buy a clue as to the details
of it. They're talking about their bizzare and baseless
interpretations of the RICO law (RICO stands for Racketeering in
Corrupt Organizations). They don't actually know anything about it but
they apparently feel that it makes them important or somehow empowered
to bandy about "RICO RICO RICO" so that is what we're talking about.

And fishshitforbrains also thinks he is talking about wire and/or mail
fraud though again he doesn't have the first clue what he's talking
about.

And there is no such thing as "Laws of democratic countries IN
GENERAL." Each country has their own laws. To the extent that they are
part of the EU they might be talking about EU laws. And to the extent
that there are international laws and/or treaties, again, they are
specific.

Further, there just is no such thing as "laws ... IN GENERAL" there
are only specific laws.

Finally, misdiagnosis just isn't against the law, any law. It may give
rise to civil remedies in some jurisdictions but not criminal cases.

Period.

I guess you are talking about Frank's fantasy laws which apply in
frankworld and in frankcourt where the nonsense these morons are
referring to might give rise to a fantasy RICO suave suit.

Other than that, no one here other than sir der has shown even a
passing knowledge of the law, RICO, fraud or anything else legal.

And very few have shown any knowledge about the science or medicine
underlying all of that.

> Now, how intentional misdiagnosis works in practice varies.
> In the Netherlands, every MD has a contract (his organization has
> bulk-contracts with health insurers).
>
> This contract stipulates that he is not allowed to diagnose more than the
> country average, not to treat more agressive than the country average, etc.
>
> Those are contracts that fly in the face of medical common sense.
> Those contracts are financial contracts made by bookkeepers.
>
> Any MD that signs such a contract has signed the evidence to condemn him for
> intentional misdiagnosis and intentional maltreatment.

So according to your ridiculous theory ALL MDs in the netherlands are
guilty of intentional misdiagnosis and intentional maltreatment just
by signing the contract whether or not they actuallys see a single
patient?

And then they are uniformly guilty of "intentional" misidiagnosis and
"intentional" mistreatment?

Whatever frank.

> In the US is may go more subtly.

Yeah it just might. (rolling eyes)

> In the US, things work more with violence, assassinations, mass brain
> washing, disappearances, secret police, such things.

How so? How does this rambling relate to anything anyone here has been
talking about?

Frank you're one sick bastard.

> In those cases, like Dr. Burrascano's case, a MD knows (from disappearing or
> incarcerated colleagues)

Ok put up or shut up. WHAT "disappearing or incarcerated colleagues"
are you talking (fantasizing) about?

>that if correctly diagnoses, he will be subjected
> to devastating lawsuits attacking his general medical practice.

What are you talking about?

> Why was Burrascano subjected to confiscation of his medical files, search of
> his practice, lawsuit?

He was subject to "confiscation" of his files (it was actually a
seizure not confiscation) for purposes of an investigation. The way it
works is a complaint is filed and an investigation conducted. As part
of the investigation they look at the files. Duh. That is also the
only "search of his practice" that occurred. And the "lawsuit" was the
licensing authority acting on the complaint.

By the way he was found GUILTY of a couple of counts; others were
dismissed.

He has also been sued for malpractice more than once by his patients.

> It still is a crime, to bow to pressure from financial interests.

What "crime" in the legal sense is that? We're trying to talk about
"crime" not about something you think is "immoral" even "criminal" in
the moral sense but only in the legal sense as in it violates some
specific statute.

Which statute do you think it violates frank?

Not some "general law of democratic countries" since no such thing
even exists.

You nut.

>MD's who
> bow to financial pressure and terrorist intimidation

"Terrorist intimidation" who are the "terrorists" here? Do you mean al
qaeda?

>are themselves guilty
> of a crime when this leads to intentional misdiagnosis or intentional
> mistreatment.

What specific crime frank? Not this moralistic fishshitforbrains
nonsense but something real?

> Any MD can be assumed to know the basics about infectious diseases,
> antibiotics and diagnostic tests vs. clinical diagnoses. A MD that chooses
> to ignore these for fear of his own person (lawsuits, public character
> defamation) is a CRIMINAL when this leads to the death of a patient. Period.
> In any country, even in your failed state.

The United States is NOT a "failed state."

I might agree that it is a failed EMPIRE, but not a failed state.

derdrittemann

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410311606.6c7da769@posting.google.com>...

"The change in the diagnostic standard caused great harm to many
> people whose illnesses were not diagnosed, that is, there is a class
> of victims who are entitled to know if, or when, the organizations
> became aware of the consequences of the change in WB standards, and
> what actions, if any, were taken to correct the mistake".

NO.

Diagnosis of Lyme disease was never supposed to take place on the
basis of a positive/negative Western Blot ALONE. Sorry. Incorrect.
Don't confuse changes that took place in the SEROdiagnostic standards
for research and surveillance purposes with the overall diagnostic
approach individual physicians are supposed to take in regard to the
disease. NO, NO, NO.

If someone were mis-diagnosed on the basis of a NON-CONFIRMATORY
Western Blot...ALONE...then the SOLE legal redress is to hold the
person responsible accountable...the physician who made the incorrect
and negligent diagnosis.

" I don't believe that a complaintent has to prove the crime, but
> only to allege it".

Yes, generally speaking...but you need to have some reasonable basis,
evidence for suggesting a crime has been committed. We are talking
about the concept of "probable cause", here...this involves the
government and accusations of individual criminality.

Look at it this way...how about if I go to the Feds and say:
"Fish is a kiddie-porno-holic...he has thousands of images of kiddie
porn on his computer...he trades in them to support his heroin
addiction".

OK with you? Don't you think the Feds are going to ask for something
more from me besides a naked, unsupported allegation of wrongdoing?

"It then becomes the job of Law Enforcement to
> investigate the allegation, to evaluate its credibility".

Well...usually, I suppose. But, AGAIN, the US attorney is an
ENFORCEMENT executive function. It is NOT primarily "investigative".
Try the FBI. But...remember that here, Kathleen TOLD them what the
applicable law was. She just told everyone that she filed a "RICO"
complaint. How do you know that it hasn't been "investigated". It's
garbage. Nonsensical.

"(I would
> inject here that Kathleen's professional status enhances the
> credibility of the allegation.)"

May I remind you that the individual of whom you speak currently
resides in a state mental health facility? Is this what you mean about
her "professional status"? I was previously unaware that being an
"analytical chemist" conferred on one any expertise in legal analysis.

"The process broadens until someone is charged or the allegation
> dismissed".

Dismissed.

"Nobody has ever RICOd a major university, or even a
> pharmaceutical company.
> I guess that's because they are so pure in their pursuit of
> scientific truth and human wellbeing".

Well, that is one way to look at it...the other would be that they
don't fall within the statutory definition of a "criminal
enterprise"...staute just doesn't apply.

A_Weisman

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410311606.6c7da769@posting.google.com>...
> I don't speak for Kathleen... so this is my take. The diagnostic
> standard was changed to facilitate an enterprise that required
> substantial investment, and which promised substantial return.

What "enterprise" are you referring to? Including whom?

Who invested what when where and with whom? What companies are
involved? Who benefitted? Please show us the EVIDENCE (sorry to be
such a stickler), the paper trail etc.

And please explain how you deal with the sovereign immunity issue?

Do you mean the starship enterprise?

>I
> wonder if the pharmaceutical partners were in any way involved in
> that?

So your policy is shoot first with defamatory accusations and sort it
out later in terms of actually producing evidence?

What "pharmeceutical partners" are you talking about? How did anyone
benefit financially?

Please explain how the UNDERdiagnosis of Lyme disease and
recommendations NOT to even use lab testing resulted in a financial
gain for pharmeceutical companies?

It seems counterintuitive. Wouldn't they want MORE Lyme diagnosed so
they could sell drugs to treat it?

>The change in the diagnostic standard caused great harm to many
> people whose illnesses were not diagnosed, that is, there is a class
> of victims who are entitled to know if, or when, the organizations

What "organizations" are you talking about? I know I'm being a
stickler for details but, this is important. Otherwise this all sounds
suspiciously like a baseless fantasy conspiracy theory of everything
and your enemy is "them" the famous THEM who are responsible for
EVERYTHING you don't like or agree with.

> became aware of the consequences of the change in WB standards, and
> what actions, if any, were taken to correct the mistake.
> Additionally, Dresler-Steere referenced only one immune
> sub-group, and had no demonstrated validity for the larger population
> of patients.

What immune sub group are you talking about? What do you even mean by
"immune sub group" and how is this a crime even if your ramblings were
true?

> It sort of haunts me that in 93/94 Lyme was presented as an easy
> to diagnose, easy to treat minor illness that was widely
> overdiagnosed??Why make a vaccine for that?

Your assumption that Lyme was presented as an easy to diagnose and
easy to treat minor illness is a gross generalization.

Steere yale sigal idsa aldf and others were instrumental in
documenting the expanding manifestations of Lyme, as a multi systemic
illness with potentially serious sequelae. The fact that it IS for
many relatively minor and easily treatable notwithstanding.

> I don't believe that a complaintent

LOL Complainant you nitwit.

>has to prove the crime, but
> only to allege it.

WRONG. Couldn't be MORE wrong. The plaintiff has the burden of proof.
So would the government in a criminal case. In a civil case the burden
of proof is a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50%) in a
criminal case it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shows how very little you know that you obviously don't know such a
simple and basic thing.

>It then becomes the job of Law Enforcement to
> investigate the allegation, to evaluate its credibility. (I would
> inject here that Kathleen's professional status enhances the
> credibility of the allegation.)

Kathloon's status as a seriously mentally ill freak detracts from any
credibility that her ridiculous and baseless hallucinations might
have. Her "professional status" as a babbling retired and disabled
chemist adds exactly NOTHING. And the fact that she has NOTHING in
terms of EVIDENCE to support all of her ramblings shows that there is
no credibility or basis for anything she says.

The "credibility" of her endless baseless accusations and conspiracy
theories HAS been evaluated and found wanting thus there are no
"investigations" since law enforcement can't investigate the bizarre
allegations of every mentally ill paranoid schizophrenic psychotic
freak.

The fact that you apparently can't see that shows what a mindless
freak you are.

> The process broadens until someone is charged or the allegation
> dismissed.

> Nobody has ever RICOd a major university, or even a
> pharmaceutical company.

WRONG.

AGAIN.

As usual.

You moron.

Though it would seriously cut down on the frequency of your posts, why
don't you try to confine yourself to things you know something about?

> I guess that's because they are so pure in their pursuit of
> scientific truth and human wellbeing.

Back on your soapbox blowing more meaningless bubbles that float in
the air and pop without an audible sound.

Get a life you whining hypochonriac!

derdrittemann

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

Frank de Groot

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

"derdrittemann" <derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> No. The first step in amateur internet legal analysis is to identify
> the controlling jurisdiction...whose law applies? Here, it is...(hint,
> hint)...a big red,white and blue nation that is holding big elections
> tomorrow. Any ideas?

Lemme guess.. Is it that same nation that last week was warned by a US
citizen "Azzam the American" that the upcoming attacks would be so massive
that there will be not enough people left to count the dead? The same nation
that, 2 days later, was warned in a (censored and wrongly translated) speech
by Sheikh Osama bin Laden that if the planned Fallujah massacre would go
ahead, that Al Qaida would unleash thermonuclear war onto that nation?

My advice to you: Don't perpotrate a collective-punishment genocidal
massacre on Fallujah. I have seen *nobody* mentioning it, but Al Qaida gave
a clear DOUBLE warning. Perhaps someone should inform the precedint of the
merkin gummint, in the meantime go buy some duct tape.

derdrittemann

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0410312337.3b8c2969@posting.google.com>...
> derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0410310924.5ae766c0@posting.google.com>...
>
> "Derdritteman, you are incorrect here. Dearborn has been endorsed by
> the Food and Drug Adminstration for serodiagnosis as well".

Greg...before you start correcting me or we start arguing
here...perhaps we should expend a little effort to see if we actually
have a disagreement, or, are just having semantic problems.

Please notice that I used the word "diagnostic", NOT...SEROdiagnostic.

> "Please do not confuse the serodiagnostic standard of Dearborn with the
> CDC disease definition. The disease definition was approved for
> surveillance and research. The Dearborn criteria have been
> incorporated into the CDC disease definition but exist outside it as
> well, for other uses and in other contexts, as mentioned above".

I'm trying not to. That's the whole damn point.
>
> "Do not take my word for this, but check yourself. You will find
> reference to all this by reading the transcripts of the various
> committee meetings on Lyme disease from the time periods mentioned.
> You can also check by calling the agencies involved or the scientists
> who had seats on the committee meetings, and even by reading the
> guidelines for serodiagnosis of Lyme (different than the idsa
> treatment guidelines.)".

No thank you.
>
> "I assure you that I am right on this and you are not --please don't
> argue with me before checking out what I say. You will find I am
> correct. It still isn't RICO of course, but unless you understand what
> I have said, above, you cannot appreciate the extent of the damage
> done".
>
> Gregory Gerber

Greg...we are talking here, ultimately about a theory of liability...a
theory which some would extend from action taken at this Dearborn
conference and extend to personal injury suffered by individual
patients.

So...there must be an UNBROKEN chain of causation from the actions
taken at this conference...which DIRECTLY impact on the individual and
cause them injury.

My understanding is that the SEROdiagnostic standards for the
evalauation of Lyme disease were altered at this conference.

I am using the words "research" to mean the attempt to provide uniform
standards for subjects in research studies.

"Surveillance" I understand to mean the CDC's reporting requirements
of cases which satisfy their definitional standards.

"Diagnostic" as I have used it...means what the individual physician
relies upon...should rely upon...in diagnosing Lyme
disease...including the ELISA and observation of clinical symptoms.
This is what I mean when I say "Dearborn didn't change the diagnostic
standard". It has always been, so far as I know, a "clinical"
diagnosis, supported by blood analysis.

A physician is NOT supposed to rely on serodiagnosis alone in making
an evaluation of whether a person has Lyme, or not.

My understanding, simplified, is that while the serodiagnostic
definitions changed for the research and surveillance purposes...those
SEROdiagnostic changes were NOT...IN AND OF THEMSELVES...SUPPOSED to
alter the diagnostic approaches of individual physicians.

In reality...did they, though? YES. Undeniably. Doctors mistakenly
applied the "new" serodiagnostic standards INCORRECTLY. Labs changed
their reporting accordingly.

HOWEVER...people need to understand that this is a LIABILITY theory we
are discussing...and when individuals make MISTAKES because they don't
understand how the standards are to be used...

....then LIABILITY must be allocated where it is due, or appropriate.

And...the intervening acts of individual negligence sever any
purported chain of causation extending back to actions taken at
Dearborn. It just doesn't work.

Not only does it not work...it's a non-"starter". Isn't even worth
talking about...and frankly...I am getting sick and damn tired of it.

What I am saying very directly...I HOPE...is that speaking
LEGALLY...the Dearborn actions were IRRELEVANT to any theory of legal
liability as it applies to the "misdiagnosis" of Lyme disease.

Why?

Simple.

Because a Western Blot is not SOLELY determinative of whether a person
has the disease. Diagnosis is NOT SUPPOSED to be based on this factor
alone.

In other words, a person can be diagnosed wih Lyme disease on the
observation of clinical symptoms alone...without a positive ELISA or
Western Blot.

Have the Dearborn critieria "hurt" the Lyme patient's ability to
achieve a proper diagnosis?

I would say, yes, without doubt...and many have gone undiagnosed and
therefore are now suffering as a consequence.

But that FACT does NOT necessarily translate into LEGAL liabilty and
extend backwards to the formulators of policy.

You simply cannot, in this country, hold someone responsible as
guarantors or insurers for the mistakes made by others...hold them
accountable for the MISUSE of the standards they promulgated.

Sorry. Don't work that way.

(And realize, Greg, that although this is addressed to you...it is
intended to be read by everyone...I am not trying to quarrel with you
here...but taking an opportunity to address larger issues...once
AGAIN)...and again...and again...

Frank de Groot

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

"Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote

> Lemme guess.. Is it that same nation that last week was warned by a US
> citizen "Azzam the American" that the upcoming attacks would be so massive
> that there will be not enough people left to count the dead? The same
nation
> that, 2 days later, was warned in a (censored and wrongly translated)
speech
> by Sheikh Osama bin Laden that if the planned Fallujah massacre would go
> ahead, that Al Qaida would unleash thermonuclear war onto that nation?

Damn..
Even Pentagon TV (the Nazi propaganda machine Fox "news") says Al Qaida will
blow up 7 US cities with nukes.

http://p080.ezboard.com/fthefinalph...icID=5779.topic

I will eat pretzels, have a beer and watch the
e-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-lection

Bwoahahahaha!

Warning: Mushroom clouds in your rearview mirror are larger than they seem.

Hehe..

Radiation therapy for the terrorists.

Now, seriously, please all be careful now, ya hear..

A_Weisman

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

"Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote in message news:<f1thd.4554$rh1.124009@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> "Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote in message
> news:S%ohd.4867$Km6.127169@news4.e.nsc.no...
>
> or
>
>
> I forgot to mention the world-renowned microbiologist Lida Mattman who
> developed a 100% accurate test for Lyme.

LOL Frank, there is a BIG difference between a test that says that it
is Lyme 100% of the time and a test that is 100% accurate for Lyme.

She was one of those who developed a test that is the former NOT the
latter.

She also believes that EVERYONE HAS Lyme.

And also that Lyme can be transmitted on doorknobs and on pens and
pencils (which is, by the way, scientifically IMPOSSIBLE Bb being an
aneroebic organism (microaerobic to be totally accurate) and it simply
wouldn't survive on doorknobs or pens and pencils).

> She was told by unidentified men in suits that "When you don't close your
> laboratory, you and your family will regret it dearly".

Where do you get this nonsense?

She was running tests in an UNLicensed laboratory. She KNEW it was
unlicensed. She tried the transparent sham that she was charging
people a couple of hundred dollars as a "DONATION" for research.
However DONATIONS are voluntary NOT mandatory. She wasn't doing the
test for people who didn't "donate" thus this was a CHARGE. For an
unlicensed unapproved and unproven test. In an unlicensed lab.

And despite saying it was for "research" most of the doctors ordering
it used it for diagnosis as if it were "proof."

Even Dr Phillips distanced himself from her, and from the Bowen
Institute folks and he is the one who helped develop the test.

THe article they did was methodologically inadequate in that samples
were NOT blinded (much less double blinded) and there was no PCR
confirmation.

The test MIGHT be valid. Or it might not.

In any event, as it was being done it was not legitimate.

Similarly a lab called Gensys was doing "culture and sensitivity"
testing for Lyme, claiming to be able to routinely and reliably
culture the notoriously difficult/impossible bacteria AND do
sensitivity testing for it.

They told the llmds and patients what they wanted to hear.

Turns out it was a TOTAL fraud.

And when Gensys was shut down AND prosecuted lo and behold Mattman and
her lab and Bowen stepped in.

And the most absurd thing that you said and don't know what you're
talking about is that "unidentified men" showed up etc.

They were identified. Part of the dept of health. And other officials
all of whom had to identify themselves.

Mattman was warned repeatedly and ultimately shut down.

She knew what she was doing was wrong and continued doing it anyway.

My question: why not do things the RIGHT way instead? It wouldn't have
been that much harder. And instead of another dubious event in Lyme
history she could have done things the right way.

Now people dismiss the test in part because of how she went about
things. The baby might be thrown out with the bathwater if the test
was and is legit which remains to be seen and proven. But if it is,
going about things this way ENSURED that no one would take the test or
her seriously.

In other words she created the appearance of impropriety even if there
was none and that is a shame because now what might be legit will
never be considered so (or at the least a huge obstacle to its
legitimacy has been unecessarily created).

And you don't add any credibility when you make up stories about it as
if the men in black showed up to suppress the truth about alien
visitation and close encounters.

Get a life frank.

> She complied.

She was forcibly shut down after being warned numerous times. She was
made to comply.

She is like 115 years old and thinks everything she sees under her
microscope is spirochetes. In all probability she is seeing floaters
in her eye and can no longer distinguish.

Who knows? But she ensured that the culture test won't be taken
seriously again any time soon.

And that was foolish and damaging.

A_Weisman

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0411010634.78de770@posting.google.com>...
> Can anyone pick out two recent graduates of the Rush Limbaugh School
> of Law and Science? Hint, hint, their last names end in the signgular
> and plural of what they pretend to be.

Sorry to bother you with the ANNOYING and admittedly picayune details
that your "legal theories" are absurd baseless and stupid and that you
HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to the law much
less the relevant science.

You just make up and spew crap as you go. And it is laughable.

By the way, in my opinion, Rush Limbaugh is a BIG FAT IDIOT and SO ARE
YOU fishcrapforbrains!

Get a life!

Frank de Groot

2004-11-01, 7:09 pm

"A_Weisman" <a_weisman@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> She also believes that EVERYONE HAS Lyme.

Where is the evidence?
Anyway, it's irrelevant.

> aneroebic organism (microaerobic to be totally accurate) and it simply
> wouldn't survive on doorknobs or pens and pencils).

It's called microaerophillic, not microaerobic.

> She was running tests in an UNLicensed laboratory.

She was one ot the world's most renowned microbiologists.
What do you mean "unlicenced".
A lab is a lab is a lab.
No such thing as a "licenced" lab, apart from mafia protection money in
return for a seal of approval from the mafia.

> She is like 115 years old and thinks everything she sees under her
> microscope is spirochetes. In all probability she is seeing floaters
> in her eye and can no longer distinguish.

She is one of the world's most experienced microbiologists.

People were very angry and jealous she managed to culture them.
She caused losses to the insurance industry.
She had to be eliminated.

derdrittemann

2004-11-01, 10:07 pm

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0410312337.3b8c2969@posting.google.com>...
> "I assure you that I am right on this and you are not --please don't
> argue with me before checking out what I say. You will find I am
> correct. It still isn't RICO of course, but unless you understand what
> I have said, above, you cannot appreciate the extent of the damage
> done".
>
> Gregory Gerber

Again, re-reading what I wrote...it is admittedly somewhat confusing.
I know what I meant...although I'm not sure anyone else could
understand it...

....BUT...

....as I have said before, it is largely irrelevant WHATEVER was done
at Dearborn, so far as it impacts on liability issues.

The simple FACT remains that unless a physician MISUSES the diagnostic
process...unless an individual physician inappropriately uses a
NON-CONFIRMATORY blot to discount the presence of disease...WHICH
HE/SHE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO DO...

....it has no impact.

The impact of the Dearborn changes only come into play when they are
MISUSED.

You cannot hold policy-makers responsible and liable for the mistakes
made by others in the field who are clearly NOT applying the
principles properly.

Greg Gerber

2004-11-02, 11:10 am

derdrittemann

2004-11-02, 11:10 am

"Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote in message news:<HIxhd.4666$rh1.125009@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> "Frank de Groot" <franciad@online.no> wrote

> "I will eat pretzels, have a beer and watch the
> e-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-lection

>
> Bwoahahahaha!
>
> Warning: Mushroom clouds in your rearview mirror are larger than they seem.
>
> Hehe..

> Radiation therapy for the terrorists.
>
> Now, seriously, please all be careful now, ya hear"..

That's nice, Frank.

But remember before you get all comfy to watch and see if Bush gets
re-elected the way Osama wants...

....you still need to come up with a criminal statute that makes (LOL)
"intentional misdiagnosis" a CRIME.

By the way...in re your dissertation on insurance contracts in the
Netherlands...in the US, any such contract would be
unenforcable...void...as it would be considered illegal and against
public policy to enforce. Wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

You really should stop trying to make yourself look smart...it just
isn't working out very well.

And remember, Phyllis says when you shift topics...you need to start a
new header. We were discussing Lyme disease, remember?

But here's a helpful thought for you...as it would appear fairly
obvious that you SUCK at playing internet doctor...("take 450 mgs of
doxy and call me in the morning")...and you SUCK even worse at
internet lawyer...

....how about a career as "suicide bomber"?

The health benefits are not very good, but the travel options, I hear
are wonderful...

....I mean, you get to go all over.

derdrittemann

2004-11-02, 11:10 am

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0411010634.78de770@posting.google.com>...

> "Can anyone pick out two recent graduates of the Rush Limbaugh School
> of Law and Science? Hint, hint, their last names end in the signgular
> and plural of what they pretend to be".

WHERE is your EVIDENCE of "mail fraud" or "wire fraud"?

THIS is NOT a substitute.

Where is it?

You asked people to contact the US Attorney and recommend people for prosecution.

Where is your evidence of crime?

What do you say we stick to substantive matters? Okay?

derdrittemann

2004-11-02, 11:10 am

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0411011129.32b769a8@posting.google.com>...

> "Another consideration about Dearborne would involve how commercial
> labs that
> offered Lyme WBs changed, or didn't change, their diagnostic profiles.
> Sorry to offer another heresy, but the Primary Care doctors do tend to
> just read the lab's interpretation of the results. Sort of like "6
> bands you got it, less than 3 you don't, and in between is a maybe".
> Its not like the docs have the most recent acceptable bands in their
> heads, or written on the cuffs of their shirts".

What in the hell is this supposed to mean?

Greatcod

2004-11-03, 11:08 am

It means you don't get reality.
PC Docs, ER docs, don't spend a great deal of time, if any at all,
examing the "literature" to come up with the latest distinction
between survalence
criteria and diagnostic criteria.
They order a Lyme WB, and count bands...and somewhere on that
sheet is
a notation of what's Positive, what's Negative, and what's In-Between.
That's how medical tests comeback from the Lab, or haven't you figured
that out yet. Are you really so stupid that you believe the doctors
have the latest
Lyme research in one hand, the patient's test specific responsive
bands in the other, and come to some kind of Godlike decision...

A_Weisman

2004-11-03, 7:10 pm

derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0411020904.7073e6d4@posting.google.com>...
> Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0411011129.32b769a8@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>
> What in the hell is this supposed to mean?

It means that fishcrapforbrains is once again proudly displaying his
complete and utter ignorance.

For his information (not that he bothers with facts) the lab tests
come along with an interpretation which includes a summary of the FDA
warning about the limitations of lab testing for Lyme and explaining
in summary some of the problems with Lyme testing.

So they don't need to be "armed with the latest literature" and
parsing the details--it is provided in summary for them and they are
warned that positive or negative testing doesn't make or break the
clinical diagnosis of Lyme.

What I find ironic is that this particular self righteous moron
actually excuses doctors for NOT knowing the latest guidance and not
being up to date on Lyme.

The standard Jury Instruction in medical malpractice cases REQUIRES
that they keep up to date with such developments and apply them in
their practice.

Yet he repeatedly argues that we can't expect doctors to do that.

Once again not only does he NOT know what he's talking about when it
comes to law medicine science common sense or anything else, but he
makes a self defeating argument based on his total and complete utter
ignorance.

He probably is a Bush voter.

A_Weisman

2004-11-03, 7:10 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0411011129.32b769a8@posting.google.com>...
> Another consideration about Dearborne would involve how commercial
> labs that
> offered Lyme WBs changed, or didn't change, their diagnostic profiles.

While this post makes little or no gramatical sense and is hard to
decipher so is hard to respond to since it is totally incoherent, the
part I do get is some vague (of course) theory about commercial labs
somehow benefitting from the Dearborn standard. Putting aside the fact
that most of those labs are PERFORMING rather than MANUFACTURING the
tests it also makes no sense since the Steere Yale Sigal IDSA ALDF
view is that doctors usually shouldn't even perform Lyme tests since
they are unreliable and produce so many false positives and may lead
to what they say (I don't agree) is unecessary treatment.

My question is HOW do they benefit financially from recommendations
AGAINST even bothering to perform the tests?

Similar to the question: how do the pharmaceutical companies he
alleges are part of this grand conspiracy theory of everything, stand
to gain financially from a narrow diagnostic standard since that leads
to underdiagnosis and undertreatment and how do they stand to gain
from recommendations against long term treatment?

His theory is follow the dropping revenues rather than follow the
money?

Fishcrapforbrains. What a freaking moron. Self righteous stupid
bastard.

> Sorry to offer another heresy, but the Primary Care doctors do tend to
> just read the lab's interpretation of the results. Sort of like "6
> bands you got it, less than 3 you don't, and in between is a maybe".
> Its not like the docs have the most recent acceptable bands in their
> heads, or written on the cuffs of their shirts.

A_Weisman

2004-11-03, 7:10 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0411030628.2279f9bf@posting.google.com>...
> It means you don't get reality.

You're the one who has no clue about reality.

All you know is that you love to sit on your soapbox and hold forth
with your grand pronouncements on morality and ethics.

But you are clueless.

> PC Docs, ER docs, don't spend a great deal of time, if any at all,
> examing the "literature" to come up with the latest distinction
> between survalence
> criteria and diagnostic criteria.

1. How do YOU know? As in what is the basis of your knowledge about
what doctors (in the broad generalization you draw) do or do not know,
and what they do or don't spend their time doing?

2. Did you know that doctors have to do fifty hours of continuing
medical education yearly?

3. There is no "latest" distinction between survEILLance criteria and
diagnostic criteria, either generally or specific to Lyme. You can't
even spell surveillance you moron.

4. As usual you have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

> They order a Lyme WB, and count bands...and somewhere on that
> sheet is
> a notation of what's Positive, what's Negative, and what's In-Between.

There is a LONG explanation providing a summary of the FDA bulletin
from 1997 on the limitations of Lyme testing along with a guide to
interpretation of test results, whether it is a WB or an ELISA.

> That's how medical tests comeback from the Lab, or haven't you figured
> that out yet.

LOL Clearly you don't have any idea what you're talking about. No one
should listen to anything you say because you are a clueless moron.
That is NOT how medical tests come back (which should be two words
here) from the lab.

Dipstick.

>Are you really so stupid that you believe the doctors
> have the latest
> Lyme research in one hand, the patient's test specific responsive
> bands in the other, and come to some kind of Godlike decision...

Are YOU really so stupid as to insist on displaying your utter
ignorance on a regular basis? YOu know even less about the law and
medicine and science than frank our self appointed expert on
everything.

Get a life fishcrapforbrains.

By the way it has become apparent that the TRUTH is that YOU are
McSweegan along with those pretending to be Lisa. YOU are trying to
discredit the Lyme community and do so with every post. Now you've
been exposed as McSweegan.

:-)

Have a nice day moron.

A_Weisman

2004-11-03, 7:10 pm

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0410270731.1c03326e@posting.google.com>...
> Kathleen

Who is currently involuntarily hospitalized in a locked mental
institution

>asks Lyme Activists to support the RICO investigation she has
> requested from US Attorney Kevin O'Conner.

though she has no idea what RICO is. . .

>Briefly, she charges that
> Yale people orchestrated the change in the Western Blot diagnostic
> criteria at Dearborne in 1993.

And this constitutes what crime exactly, much less what predicate acts
necessary to a RICO case?

> Several common bands were removed from the WB diagnostic profile; this
> was done in order to promote the developemnt of a vaccine which would
> financially benefit both Yale and its drug company partners.....

Beyond the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE as to the motives and this
is highly inaccurate speculation, what about the little problem of
sovereign immunity since the Dearborn standard was adapted by a
government agency?

>THE
> CONSEQUENCE was that Lyme became almost undetectable by WB blood tests.

The WB was highly inaccurate PRIOR to the change in diagnostic
standards and to say "virtually undetectable" is a gross and self
serving exaggeration.

>We are the victims,
> us and countless thousands whose infection was hard or impossible to
> diagnose by non-LLD's, any doctor who trusted the accuracy of the new
> profile.

Any doctor who trusted the accuracy of the tests notwithstanding
everything else telling them the tests were inaccurate unreliable and
that Lyme was a clinical diagnosis at most committed malpractice not a
crime. And since the standard of care for Lyme is so abysmally poor
and Lyme misdiagnosis is common, it probably isn't even negligence
much less a crime.

> PLEASE CALL these people and let them know you support further RICO
> investigation.

And help destroy any credibility that Lymeland has remaining. Do it
simply because someone tells you to do it, do it without thinking or
questioning since that is what Lyme activists demand. Don't dissent or
dare to question because you'll be called McSweegan.

>You don't have to argue the case,

LOL Argue the case? ROTFL LMAO argue the case? Oh that is precious.

> you don't have to tell your story.

Good idea no one cares it isn't relevant and life is too short.

>Just say you support further action. Perhaps you will
> only speak with a secretary, or leave a recorded message...That's
> fine. No one is asking you to argue the biology.

Argue the biology? I just spit out my soda I'm laughing so hard.

> CALL:
> US Attorney Kevin O'Conner--203-821-3700
> Attorney Nora Danehy-- 860-947-1101
> Thanks

Call and show everyone what a mindless sheep you are, what a moron and
how you need to get a life...

Greatcod

2004-11-03, 10:07 pm

Can anyone pick out two recent graduates of the Rush Limbaugh School
of Law and Science? Hint, hint, their last names end in the signgular
and plural of what they pretend to be.

derdrittemann

2004-11-04, 2:08 am