ATTORNEYS  |  LAW STUDENTS  |  PUBLICchat center
Counsel.Net - ATTORNEYS - Attorneys Lawyers Attorney Law And Legal Professionals
Attorneys lawyers law firms
Latest Posts Full Chatboard Submit Post
Click here
Click here


Toxlaw.com Nav
Toxic Tort Forum
ToxBoard (Gn)
Attorneys
Law Students
Practice Areas
Legal Jobs
Classified Ads
MCLE/CLE
Legal Questions

Report this post


Re: Defending Dr. Shoemaker
Posted by ff on 1/09/08


    Hi, Tracy:

    My first recollection is of thoughts I had about, not necessarily your
    situation, but the broad picture. That is, many, in similar situations as
    yours, go through extended efforts and mutiple visits, and often we hear about
    the inability, unwillingness, or even refusal of MD's to devote time/interest
    needed to solve these problems.

    I think that the total of such experiences above, when weighed against one MD
    that does address the problem, warrants focusing on the help from that one MD.

    Regarding the post/s below, ?, I don't understand. Where does all of that
    get you/us? As far as agreeing/disagreeing, I appreciate differing
    opinions...when presented in a constructive manner. I'm not going to argue or
    debate it, unless you find it necessary or helpful in some way, and I
    certainly do not mind hearing criticism. I pretty patient, tolerant, have at
    it. But, I always, hope the best for everyone.

    ff

    On 1/09/08, Tracy wrote:
    > Hi all,
    > ff, do you mean regarding my statement that I am giving all the facts and
    > letting others make their own interpretations? You have a point- I clearly
    > put in there my impressions, and then my discomfort. I did go in being very
    > objective (read my post below)- you applauded me for that.
    > What is important though presently, is that I backed up every conclusion I
    > came too, lest it become 'bitching'. Actually, 'bashing' might be a better
    > word- I had seen some of this before on this thread. I clearly presently
    > state what has made me feel this way and that way. With what I have
    written,
    > people can still see the facts as they happened, and can form their own
    > interpretations. I did not leave any actions/details out, for that
    purpose.
    > This can offer some validation to those who DO experience some of what I
    > experienced (sounds like there were a handfull). You are a lucky one who
    did
    > not. I'm glad for you. Your case was probably 'clear cut' (I'm not
    referring
    > to severity). For folks whom have or had Lyme, it can often become very
    > complicated, and they need to be monitored on seemingly innocuous
    medications.
    >
    > One interesting thing -when you liked what I wrote (philosopical statements,
    > absense of much emotion), and when I posted things that backed up your
    > experience, you were quick to support me. Now that I have added to my
    > picture (NOT CHANGED MY PHILOSOPHY) an interpersonal component, and one that
    > differs from what you experienced, you are quick to find fault with me.
    > Especially when a situation is as delicate as this, there are so many other
    > things you can be focusing on in my writing, as opposed to catching me up on
    > my statement that I was trying to be non-judgemental. I suppose that is the
    > easier thing to do. Read your response and my first post (below).
    >
    > On 6/14/07, ff wrote:
    >>
    >> Tracy:
    >>
    >> Thank you for your post, well written and needed.
    >>
    >> In reading recent submissions on the board, several points/facts stand out
    >> to me and I'll lightly hit on a few. Science is "business" in some cases
    >> (something we all know), and there are companies that
    >> manufacture/fabricate opinions which are essentially sold - i.e. science
    >> for sale. This is done with knowlegde and intent being to prevail in
    >> various, with disregard for truth, scienctific validity, and injury to
    >> opposing sides. What should be shocking to all, if I read this correctly,
    >> is that these illegitimate services are sold to, and willingly used by,
    >> governmental agencies in contradiction to their statutory/legislative duty.
    >>
    >> It has been my observation over the years that the principals involved in
    >> such efforts, rarely conduct primary research and often enter into
    >> different issues which require different expertise, of which they do not
    >> have. They are successful largely due to the commercial and governmental
    >> backing and support, which is skillfully used to convince an unsuspecting
    >> public.
    >>
    >> If the above allegations are correct, in that the collusion results in
    >> failure to provde for human health, thereby causing injury to continue,
    >> both commercial and governmental entities should be held accountable.
    >>
    >> Regarding Dr. Shoemaker, I watched the process at work. But let me state
    >> that in the situation I am intimately familiar with, he was not
    >> discredited by any means. A major human health and environmental
    >> disaster, worldwide, was buried by way of corporate influence and
    >> attorneys, in my opinion, converging on the agencies and paving the way
    >> for scientists/consultants hired by the liable party to redirect the
    >> science effort, avoiding causation. This was simply damage control and
    >> it's done all the time.
    >>
    >> The position held by those scientists/consultants hired by coporate
    >> defense counsel, is contradicted by internal corporate documentation. In
    >> other words, corporate attorneys brought in consultants to make argumenrts
    >> that contradict what they really knew. This invovled a chemical and long
    >> term effects on microflora/fauna, and biotoxins. One scientist stated
    >> that he found it hard to believe that a chemical that disappears could
    >> cause a long term problem. Inside the corporate documentation, their own
    >> employee/scientists proved that, based on his experiments recorded in lab
    >> notebooks and other document@ion, after one application, the chemical
    >> was still biologically active after four years. I wonder if the outside
    >> consultants knew this?
    >>
    >> Fortunately for me personally, Dr/ Shoemaker's treament was effective on
    >> both the chemical toxins, and the biological toxins. VCS readings aligned
    >> perfectly with treatment, time, and improvement. Interestingly, on the
    >> chemical side, EPA's manual on treating poisoning recommended the same
    >> chemical. With an estimated 120,000 exposures in Florida alone, EPA never
    >> let it out that they had a remedy. Similarly, the VCS test caused them to
    >> scramble for cover:
    >>
    >> EPA recommending an antidote would suggest there was in fact a problem,
    >> and the liability for 120,000 FL workers was astronomical. EPA takes the
    >> stand that there could not be a problem, essentially because with
    >> registration by EPA, the chemical was obviously safe.
    >>
    >> Recognizing Dr. Shoemaker's effective use of VCS would allow or lead to
    >> the identification of disease, in contradiction to the biggest scheme run
    >> by the agencies in these types of situations - "No identifiable disease".
    >> which was made certain by industry and government collusion in a damage
    >> control effort. Unfortunately, in this issue, as is so often seen, no
    >> alternative cause was suggested, much less the actual cause, leaving the
    >> victims without any hope of a cure. Be careful when studies conclude by
    >> telling you what it is not, rather than what it is.
    >>
    >> Agencies with statutory obligation to provide for human health, align with
    >> industry in damage control schemes based on manufactured or
    >> fabricated "science". Recent posts here have disclosed that business
    >> entities, essentially sell this "science" to both industry and
    >> governmental agencies, which is then used for damage control. Legitimate
    >> science and medical treatments are abandoned in the name of damage control
    >> with disregard for human health.
    >>
    >> Legitimate scientists hired by corporations may (routinely) proceed absent
    >> knowledge held tightly within corporations which often contradicting the
    >> more favorable conclusions by the unsuspecting legitimate outside
    >> scientists. This is why I keep warning Deano to be careful or sure he
    >> hasn't been had by industry's scam on chemicals, pathogens, and mycotoxins
    >> in the food chain and/or IAQ.
    >>
    >> In the above chemical-intitiated microbial disaster where the science
    >> effort was derailed to avoid liability, the scientists opposing Dr.
    >> Shoemaker's research protocol lacked the necessary experitise, research,
    >> and internal corporate knowlegde. They also were not Medical Doctors,
    >> much less in practice, which is overly convenient for those not wanting to
    >> risk disease identification best accomplished a prcticing MD/Researcher
    >> such as Dr. Shoemaker. Accordingly, when the agenies' study proceeded,
    >> interviews were not even conducted by health care professionals, but by an
    >> IAQ lab.
    >>
    >> The IAQ lab offers another great example of entities moving forward having
    >> accepted as fact, opinions interjected by scientist/consultants hired by
    >> legal counsel for the liable corporation, which is contradicted by
    >> internal documents/research. You have to wonder, and so should the lab
    >> have wondered, if legitimate science required participation by a
    >> corporation facing potential liability if their chemcial were found to be
    >> the cause.
    >>
    >> By the way, thanks to Dr. Shoemaker for his expertise and willingness to
    >> to solve health problems without which, I doubt I would be here today.
    >>
    >> ff
    >>
    >>
    >> On 6/13/07, Tracy Hans wrote:
    >>> Hi! In reading the entire discussion, I want to contribute my thoughts.
    >>> I am tired and a bit irritated from reading some of these posts, feel
    >>> the need to respond.
    >>>
    >>> Advancing medicine, or the health field involves theoretical
    >>> postulation. Empirical evidence is not borne from scientific testing
    >>> without theory.
    >>>
    >>> No progress is made without taking risks. Very few doctors will do so,
    >>> for fear- fear of being proven wrong, fear of patients lawsuit, fear of
    >>> going against the grain, fear of learning that their formal training was
    >>> flawed, fear of success, even. A combination of some of these fears,
    >>> perhaps.
    >>>
    >>> For those of us whom have suffered from chronic illness that 3/4 of the
    >>> traditional docs will not listen to (question, explore, experiment,
    >>> etc.), I would wager a bet that almost all of us would put our wellbeing
    >>> on the line to experiment, as long as there is no mounting evidence of
    >>> the DANGER of the protocol. Where are the posts on that? You can blast
    >>> things (ideas and people), but if the blasting is just focused on
    >>> someone's LACK of evidence, that means little to me (and probably other
    >>> sufferers out there). Focus your time, if you'd like, on proving the
    >>> danger in a protocol. Or in explaining other theories that might
    >>> underlie the patterns we see (with symptomatology clusters). Then I
    >>> would say that we should really listen to you. It sounds to me that some
    >>> blast just to blast. Ridiculous that someone posts, saying that they
    >>> have evidence of medical quackery because they were the doctor's
    >>> roommate, and they were introduced once, erroneously.
    >>>
    >>> I see a doc who mounted the evidence, despite traditional testing, that
    >>> I have Lyme. All prior docs stated that the "Scientific Evidence"
    >>> proved I didn't have it (despite a mildly high lyme titer and mildly
    >>> abnormal (high) lyme spinal tap results, high c3/c4 complement levels,
    >>> high SED and CRP, CCRP). It was my current, -very special- MD that
    >>> looked at a brain SPECT scan, a CD57 (Stricker panel test), bioenergetic
    >>> (EDV test), and now toxin related tests. If you add up now the big
    >>> picture, it spells LYME. Everything else known to man at this time
    >>> seems to have been cancelled out. Hey.. she also tested me for co-
    >>> infections, and guess what???
    >>>
    >>> So STILL NOW, 9 out of 10 doctors who say they treat Lyme, would say
    >>> there is nothing wrong with me.
    >>>
    >>> So who am I likely to go with... those who need 'textbook or CDC proof',
    >>> or those who say "Hey, I have a theory, let's try something"?
    >>>
    >>> What it comes down to, is I cannot walk without pain. And I am still in
    >>> so much gastrointestinal pain (after 10 years of pharmaceutically
    >>> treating the symptom which traditional docs state was/is acid reflux).
    >>> Once I started reading, listening to open-minded docs, and grasped
    >>> infection theories (and some theories which Dr. Shoemaker write about),
    >>> I found people to help me. I told a nice but 'traditional' GI doc to
    >>> PCR scope me for Lyme and co-infections that came up as IgG
    >>> (inactive/supposedly prior infection) in my blood, and Guess what? I
    >>> don't even need to tell you 'guess what'. I then found a naturopath who
    >>> monitors yeast and other things in my blood via dried blood analysis.
    >>> Separate docs have now given me enough information to fit the patterns,
    >>> substantiated in the theories of the docs often knocked. This
    >>> Naturopath was the first to be able to TOUCH the GI pain, by giving me
    >>> ALOE VERA stomach formula- a temporary fix. No purple pill did that for
    >>> 5 minutes. So now, at this point, I realize that sticking with
    >>> traditional medicine hasn't panned out for over 10 years. That's enough
    >>> evidence for me. Tracy


     
You are on the mcs CHATBOARD:   LATEST POSTS   ALL POSTS   SUBMIT POST


Sponsored Links  

Free Legal Classifieds: Buy and sell anything law-related - never a cost to post or browse
counsel.net/classifieds

Legal Jobs: Attorneys and legal professionals - find your perfect legal job from Counsel.Net
counsel.net/jobs

Attorney Directory: Find a lawyer or chat with an attorney - Free!
counsel.net

New Moms Wanted!
Join the community for new and expecting moms. Check out Maternityville.com Maternity Chat!
Other Chatboards in this Category...
Toxic Torts Chatboards
ToxBoard (Gen)
Asbestos
Black Mold
Building Materials
Class Actions
 Fen-Phen
EPA/CDC/NIH
Food Additives
Legal Experts
Medical Implants
 Fiberglass
Government Claims
Gulf War Syndrome
MCS/MCSS
Pharmaceuticals
 Herbal Supplements
Tobacco Claims
Workplace Exposures

 
      Google
       
      Web Toxlaw.com

  Site Map: Home Search Contacts Chatboards Mailrings Jobs Legal Tools Advertise
  © 1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.