malpractice

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/99 1:19:15 AM !!!First Boot!!!, mjs1964@...

writes:

<< From: Matt S <mjs1964@...>

Dr. Cowan said he believes it would be " tantamount to

malpractice " to put individuals at risk " against

somebody who could and would use this, and not give

them every protection. " >>

Wouldn't forcing several million servicemembers to get a 28 year old anthrax

vaccine that has no had any long term effects or long term studies or studies

for carcinogenic or reproductive effects be malpractice as well???

[Guest guest]

The official DOD position is that if you are unable to take the anthrax

vaccine (medical, religious, etc.) you are still fully deployable. Every

person who has a severe reaction to the vaccine and can't continue the series

is a walking malpractice billboard according to Dr. Cowan. Anyone have an

explanation for the policy of sending soldiers into battle without their

" helmet and flak vest " and admitting that the policy is malpractice?

[Guest guest]

From: Schuyler McCorkle

Dr. Cowan is correct, we should try to protect our troops by every means

available, however, does that include issuing out of date ammunition or

equipment to our troops? I think any Commander in his right mind wouldn't

think of using out of date ammunition or equipment in combat. The last time

out of date ammunition was used I believe the Gun on the New Jersey

exploded. Is Dr. Cowan therefore advocating the use of an out of date

vaccine while we have the means and technology to manufacture a safer and

more up to date vaccine? If this is such a high level priority why hasn't

DOD requested additional funding to push through the development, testing

and production of a safer and more effective vaccine? What is the purpose

of using up all the out of date lots of vaccine? Just like using out of

date ammunition you have some that work, some that mis-fire, and some that

blow-up in your face, the question Dr. Cowan and the DOD need to ask is how

many explosions will it take before we stop using an out of date vaccine?

God only knows how many mis fires we may have because the real test of that

will come when the troops actually get exposed to inhaled anthrax.

----------

>From: Gceelliott1@...

>onelist

>Subject: Re: Malpractice

>Date: Sun, Sep 26, 1999, 8:39 PM

>

>

> From: Gceelliott1@...

>

> In a message dated 9/27/99 1:19:15 AM !!!First Boot!!!, mjs1964@...

> writes:

>

> << From: Matt S <mjs1964@...>

>

> Dr. Cowan said he believes it would be " tantamount to

> malpractice " to put individuals at risk " against

> somebody who could and would use this, and not give

> them every protection. " >>

>

> Wouldn't forcing several million servicemembers to get a 28 year old anthrax

> vaccine that has no had any long term effects or long term studies or studies

> for carcinogenic or reproductive effects be malpractice as well???

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/99 2:10:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

ELLIOTTDSR@... writes:

<< The official DOD position is that if you are unable to take the anthrax

vaccine (medical, religious, etc.) you are still fully deployable. >>

Does that include those that have refused the vaccine?

[Guest guest]

Even our chemical protection suits have shelf life

expiration dates. That means when those dates pass,

you can no longer use that gear. Double standards or

just the $$$ involved? Just curious.

Tim <(((><

--- Schuyler McCorkle <csmccorkle@...>

wrote:

> From: " Schuyler McCorkle "

> <csmccorkle@...>

>

>

> From: Schuyler McCorkle

>

> Dr. Cowan is correct, we should try to protect

> our troops by every means

> available, however, does that include issuing out of

> date ammunition or

> equipment to our troops? I think any Commander in

> his right mind wouldn't

> think of using out of date ammunition or equipment

> in combat. The last time

> out of date ammunition was used I believe the Gun on

> the New Jersey

> exploded. Is Dr. Cowan therefore advocating the

> use of an out of date

> vaccine while we have the means and technology to

> manufacture a safer and

> more up to date vaccine? If this is such a high

> level priority why hasn't

> DOD requested additional funding to push through the

> development, testing

> and production of a safer and more effective

> vaccine? What is the purpose

> of using up all the out of date lots of vaccine?

> Just like using out of

> date ammunition you have some that work, some that

> mis-fire, and some that

> blow-up in your face, the question Dr. Cowan and the

> DOD need to ask is how

> many explosions will it take before we stop using an

> out of date vaccine?

> God only knows how many mis fires we may have

> because the real test of that

> will come when the troops actually get exposed to

> inhaled anthrax.

> ----------

> >From: Gceelliott1@...

> >onelist

> >Subject: Re: Malpractice

> >Date: Sun, Sep 26, 1999, 8:39 PM

> >

>

> >

> > From: Gceelliott1@...

> >

> > In a message dated 9/27/99 1:19:15 AM !!!First

> Boot!!!, mjs1964@...

> > writes:

> >

> > << From: Matt S <mjs1964@...>

> >

> > Dr. Cowan said he believes it would be

> " tantamount to

> > malpractice " to put individuals at risk " against

> > somebody who could and would use this, and not

> give

> > them every protection. " >>

> >

> > Wouldn't forcing several million servicemembers to

> get a 28 year old anthrax

> > vaccine that has no had any long term effects or

> long term studies or studies

> > for carcinogenic or reproductive effects be

> malpractice as well???

[Guest guest]

According to LTC Randolph (briefing to MG , Deputy CG, USARPAC) not

getting the vaccine is like going into battle without your helmet. I asked

him what medical conditions would keep a soldier from taking the vaccine. He

answered that a severe reaction to the vaccine. I asked him what happens to

these soldiers if they can't take the vaccine. He said they were still world

wide deployable. Kind of like playing Russian roulette with an automatic

handgun.

[Guest guest]

Riddle me this, Batman..... how is it that if you don't take the vaccine

(medical, religious, etc...) that you are fully deployable, yet if you take

the vaccine and suffer severe reactions you can be disqualified from being

deployed, and outprocessed of the military?

<< << The official DOD position is that if you are unable to take the anthrax

vaccine (medical, religious, etc.) you are still fully deployable. >>

Does that include those that have refused the vaccine?

>>

[Guest guest]

I think the question is.... " what's considered " severe " ? " There seems to be

a cajillion different opinions on this, and it doesn't appear to be that the

left hand knows what the right hand is doing at any time during this whole

process. When is enough enough?

<<

According to LTC Randolph (briefing to MG , Deputy CG, USARPAC) not

getting the vaccine is like going into battle without your helmet. I asked

him what medical conditions would keep a soldier from taking the vaccine.

He

answered that a severe reaction to the vaccine. >>

[Guest guest]

I asked the program manager, LTC R, specifically what type reactions would

preclude a soldier from continuing the vaccine series and what would happen

to a soldier who could not take the vaccine due to medical reasons. He said

the soldier would still be fully deployable. I didn't ask about those who

refuse, only about those who are medically disqualified from taking the

vaccine. If anyone goes to one of these wonderful " safe vaccine " briefings,

please ask about the deployability status of those who refuse or don't take

the vaccine for any other reason.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/30/99 4:42:14 PM !!!First Boot!!!, ELLIOTTDSR@...

writes:

<< asked the program manager, LTC R, specifically what type reactions would

preclude a soldier from continuing the vaccine series and what would happen

to a soldier who could not take the vaccine due to medical reasons. He said

the soldier would still be fully deployable. I didn't ask about those who

- refuse, only about those who are medically disqualified from taking the

vaccine. If anyone goes to one of these wonderful " safe vaccine " briefings,

please ask about the deployability status of those who refuse or don't take

the vaccine for any other reason. >>

In addition to asking about what would happen to a soldier who could not take

the vaccine due to medical reasons, I would suggest that someone ask about

the long term effects of the vaccine. No, I'm not making this up. I just

checked my mail, and I got the GAO's doecument, GAO/T-NSIAD-99-226, entitled

" Medical Readiness-Issues Concerning the Anthrax Vaccine " , dated Wednesday,

July 21, 1999, and this document on page 3, 3rd paragraph, states

" Also, we reported that the long-term safety of the vaccine has not been

investigated but that DOD is considering a study to examine long-term

effects

of the vaccine. "

In case you want to order this document, or other GAO documents,

including......

GAO/T-NSIAFD-99-214, entitled " Contract management-Observations on DOD's

Financial Relationship With the Anthrax Vaccine Manufacturer " , dated

Wednesday, June 30, 1999, or

GAO Document GAO/T-NSIAD-99-214, entitled " Medical Readiness: Safety and

Efficacy of the Anthrax Vaccine " , dated April 29, 1999.

All 3(three) of these documents can be obtained from the GAO(General

Accounting Office) at

GAO

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C.

20013

Voice: 202-512-6000

Fax: 202-512-6061

Internet: info@...

Also, I would ask the person doing this briefing on the " safety " of the

anthrax vaccine why the present Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera, wrote

in a memo obtained and printed by the San Diego Union-Tribune on June 29,

1998, that the anthrax vaccine......

" involves unusually hazardous risks associated with the potential for

adverse

reactions in some recipients and the possibility that the desired

immunological effects will not be obtained by all recipients. "

I'm sure that the person giving this briefing will attempt to discredit the

individual(s) asking these questions, but I would then suggest that the

person pull out a copy of these GAO documents and pass them around to other

members, including the speaker, in the room.

Don't you just see the irony in this??? The federal government(Sec. of Def

Cohen) and the GAO(a federal government agency) are in direct conflict with

each other based upon what the Pentagon/DOD says and what the GAO says.

If anything, I think that a federal government agency(the GAO) not agreeing

with the DOD/Pentagon is a HUGE slap in the face for the credibility of the

DOD/Pentagon!!!!

P.S.- The GAO will gladly issue copies of these documents for free.

That's right, for free. I highly suggest that you make copies of

these

documents and send copies of these to your Congressional

representatives.

[Guest guest]

I thought the reason they were kicking refusers out was that they were no

longer world wide deployable. Sounds like a double standard.

Re: Malpractice

> From: Randice1@...

>

> Riddle me this, Batman..... how is it that if you don't take the vaccine

> (medical, religious, etc...) that you are fully deployable, yet if you

take

> the vaccine and suffer severe reactions you can be disqualified from being

> deployed, and outprocessed of the military?

>

> << << The official DOD position is that if you are unable to take the

anthrax

> vaccine (medical, religious, etc.) you are still fully deployable. >>

>

> Does that include those that have refused the vaccine?

> >>

>

[Guest guest]

According to the latest testimony before the House Armed Services Committee,

DOD has and is studying long term effects.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/106thcongress/99-09-30hamre.htm

" Numerous clinical studies have been conducted on the safety of the anthrax

vaccine, in which both long and short-term side effects of the anthrax

vaccine.

These nine clinical safety studies utilizing 12,574 subjects, as well as all

the studies in aggregate, uniformly concluded that adverse reactions

associated with anthrax vaccine involve local injection site reactions or

minor, transient, self-limited, systemic events like malaise, muscle ache

or headache. As important to note during the surveillance described above,

no deaths occurred following doses of anthrax vaccine, nor have there been

any cases of severe allergic hypersensitivity reactions.

" Additional Long -Term Study - The DOD leadership, its physicians and its

research experts are confident of the safety and efficacy of the anthrax

vaccine. Our leaders also respect the concerns expressed by a small number

of service members about possible long-term health effects and want to

address these concerns using the best, most appropriate scientific knowledge

and practices. We will continue demonstrating an ongoing commitment to

ensuring the health of our men and women as we implement the AVIP. (known

as anaphylaxis). The anthrax vaccine clearly has a side-effect profile

comparable to, or better than other known vaccines. "

" On July 29, 1999, the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program Agency convened

a team of civilian and military medical experts to design a set of studies

to assess the long-term safety of the anthrax vaccine, in response to

requests from Service Members, their families and recommendations of the

General Accounting Office. In designing these studies, we have drawn from

the accumulated experience of some of the nation's best vaccine researchers

at CDC and FDA. "

Re: Malpractice

> From: Gceelliott1@...

>

> In a message dated 9/30/99 4:42:14 PM !!!First Boot!!!, ELLIOTTDSR@...

> writes:

>

> << asked the program manager, LTC R, specifically what type reactions

would

> preclude a soldier from continuing the vaccine series and what would

happen

> to a soldier who could not take the vaccine due to medical reasons. He

said

> the soldier would still be fully deployable. I didn't ask about those who

> - refuse, only about those who are medically disqualified from taking the

> vaccine. If anyone goes to one of these wonderful " safe vaccine "

briefings,

> please ask about the deployability status of those who refuse or don't

take

> the vaccine for any other reason. >>

>

> In addition to asking about what would happen to a soldier who could not

take

> the vaccine due to medical reasons, I would suggest that someone ask about

> the long term effects of the vaccine. No, I'm not making this up. I just

> checked my mail, and I got the GAO's doecument, GAO/T-NSIAD-99-226,

entitled

> " Medical Readiness-Issues Concerning the Anthrax Vaccine " , dated

Wednesday,

> July 21, 1999, and this document on page 3, 3rd paragraph, states

>

> " Also, we reported that the long-term safety of the vaccine has not

been

> investigated but that DOD is considering a study to examine long-term

> effects

> of the vaccine. "

>

> In case you want to order this document, or other GAO documents,

> including......

>

> GAO/T-NSIAFD-99-214, entitled " Contract management-Observations on DOD's

> Financial Relationship With the Anthrax Vaccine Manufacturer " , dated

> Wednesday, June 30, 1999, or

>

> GAO Document GAO/T-NSIAD-99-214, entitled " Medical Readiness: Safety and

> Efficacy of the Anthrax Vaccine " , dated April 29, 1999.

>

> All 3(three) of these documents can be obtained from the GAO(General

> Accounting Office) at

>

> GAO

> P.O. Box 37050

> Washington, D.C.

> 20013

> Voice: 202-512-6000

> Fax: 202-512-6061

> Internet: info@...

>

> Also, I would ask the person doing this briefing on the " safety " of the

> anthrax vaccine why the present Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera,

wrote

> in a memo obtained and printed by the San Diego Union-Tribune on June 29,

> 1998, that the anthrax vaccine......

>

> " involves unusually hazardous risks associated with the potential

for

> adverse

> reactions in some recipients and the possibility that the desired

> immunological effects will not be obtained by all recipients. "

>

> I'm sure that the person giving this briefing will attempt to discredit

the

> individual(s) asking these questions, but I would then suggest that the

> person pull out a copy of these GAO documents and pass them around to

other

> members, including the speaker, in the room.

>

> Don't you just see the irony in this??? The federal government(Sec. of Def

>

> Cohen) and the GAO(a federal government agency) are in direct conflict

with

> each other based upon what the Pentagon/DOD says and what the GAO says.

> If anything, I think that a federal government agency(the GAO) not

agreeing

> with the DOD/Pentagon is a HUGE slap in the face for the credibility of

the

> DOD/Pentagon!!!!

>

> P.S.- The GAO will gladly issue copies of these documents for free.

> That's right, for free. I highly suggest that you make copies of

> these

> documents and send copies of these to your Congressional

> representatives.

[Guest guest]

Regardless of what the DOD and the Pentagon says, what about the GAO, who

also works for the federal government????

Who do you trust??? The inspecting and researching agency of the Congress, or

the DOD and the Pentagon??? The GAO said that " the vaccine's long-term

safety has yet to be studied....These studies(effectiveness of the vaccine)

found that the licensed vaccine protected against some but not all strains of

anthrax. "

This is from The GAO's document entited T-NSIAD-99-148, April 29, 1999,

entitled " Medical Readiness: Safety and Efficacy of the Anthrax Vaccine. "

Listen to what the DOD said....

" Additional Long -Term Study - The DOD leadership, its physicians and its

research experts are confident of the safety and efficacy of the anthrax

vaccine. "

You believe that the federal government would say anything besides this?? Of

course they would...this is the federal governemnt, especially the

DOD/Pentagon, and obviously they aren't going to state anything negative

about the anthrax vaccine, since then they would look stupid and hypocritical

saying something that contradicted their original viewpoints about the

anthrax vaccine.

Can you believe the Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera, doesn't even

believe in the safety and the effectiveness of the anthrax vaccine??? In a

memo obtained by the San Diego Union Tribune, the Secretary of the Army said

that the anthrax vaccine

" involves unusually hazardous risks associated with the potential for

adverse

reactions in some recipients and the possibility that the desired

immunological

effect will not be obtained by all recipients. "

Also, who are you going to trust?? Are you really going to trust the

government???

After the POW/MIA situation, Agent Orange poisioning and exposure, Atomic

Veterans, Gulf War Syndrome, and now Anthrax vaccine, why should ylou trust

the DOD and the Pentagon???

[Guest guest]

Yes, the cap would be $250,000, which it is in some states already for pain

and suffering. You can thank the insurance lobby for this reform. It's

disgusting and disgraceful, but if Bush has his way, it will be passed.

Basically, he will give the doctors a license to kill and maim with little

financial consequence.

Glitter, author of <A HREF= " http://anxiety-panic.com/griffon " >Blind Reason</A>

[Guest guest]

For any in the US interested in suing their doctors, or maintaining the right to

do so in the future, President Bush is suppose to have malpractice reforms on

his agenda. I only heard a brief coverage on TV where they said he was

proposing a limit of settlements to be put at $250,000. I find it very hard to

belief such a low limit would even be considered, a person would have difficulty

finding a lawyer to take a case at that, and such an amount would hardly cover

medical expenses for any permanent or long term disability. Its possible the

reporter was in error. All I have found so far is the following where I think

it implies he will mention malpractice reform in his State of the Union Address,

Jan 28, but does not plan on giving details. (4th paragraph from the bottom)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76066,00.html

I think it an issue that many would want to follow closely and let their

representatives know their feelings on and that their vote on any bill is being

watched carefully.

If any know any more about it, I'd appreciate it if they shared.

Poster Board Protest

Dear Malinda,

If you'd really like to catch their attention just put this on the

poster boards....

EVERY DAY, ANTIDEPRESSANTS KILL 66 AMERICANS !!!

or

EVERY 7 MINUTES, SOMEONE TAKING ANTIDEPRESSANTS COMMITS SUICIDE.

DO THEY REALLY WORK???

The facts are that 30,000 people in the US commit suicide every

year and 80% of them are on the drugs. The US rate is about one third

of the world rate.

Glad to hear you're still crusading. I've been crashing the

party on pro med boards lately. I'll talk to you later. Good Luck.

Tim

[Guest guest]

Davd in NC wrote:

> Obviously, there are some drawbacks with this drug as the malpractice

attorneys already have sites

> for it.

Then we wonder about the high costs of medical treatment and drugs. I know

the Canadian government has put a cap on medical liability insurance and

some others. The US Government should also legislate some sort of a cap.

+Dave (the other Dave in balmy Southern Alberta)

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/03 2:48:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,

stfrancis@... writes:

> Obviously, there are some drawbacks with this drug as the malpractice

> attorneys already have sites

> > for it.

>

>

In testing on mice...there were quite a few cancerous tumors. Maybe this is

why the delay in FDA acceptance?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/16/04 5:09:28 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

SSRI medications writes:

> My husband was normal except chest pains which his doctor stated was

> probably a panic attack.

>

Your only cause of action is going to be against the quack who gave him all

these drugs. You can't sue the pharmas. Call a good malpractice lawyer and

see what he says. What is your husband on now? Tofranil, I think you said???

That's a bad bad drug too. He'll never get better as long as he's on any

psych meds. It's doctors like your husband's who need to be sued until they can

no longer " practice " medicine. He used your husband as a guinea pig, so let

your fingers do the walking and get yourself a good medical malpractice lawyer.

" Blind Reason "

a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's

Unsafe At Any Dose

Latest Press Release

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/16/04 5:09:28 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

SSRI medications writes:

> My husband was normal except chest pains which his doctor stated was

> probably a panic attack.

>

Your only cause of action is going to be against the quack who gave him all

these drugs. You can't sue the pharmas. Call a good malpractice lawyer and

see what he says. What is your husband on now? Tofranil, I think you said???

That's a bad bad drug too. He'll never get better as long as he's on any

psych meds. It's doctors like your husband's who need to be sued until they can

no longer " practice " medicine. He used your husband as a guinea pig, so let

your fingers do the walking and get yourself a good medical malpractice lawyer.

" Blind Reason "

a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's

Unsafe At Any Dose

Latest Press Release

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/16/04 5:09:28 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

SSRI medications writes:

> My husband was normal except chest pains which his doctor stated was

> probably a panic attack.

>

Your only cause of action is going to be against the quack who gave him all

these drugs. You can't sue the pharmas. Call a good malpractice lawyer and

see what he says. What is your husband on now? Tofranil, I think you said???

That's a bad bad drug too. He'll never get better as long as he's on any

psych meds. It's doctors like your husband's who need to be sued until they can

no longer " practice " medicine. He used your husband as a guinea pig, so let

your fingers do the walking and get yourself a good medical malpractice lawyer.

" Blind Reason "

a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's

Unsafe At Any Dose

Latest Press Release

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/16/04 5:09:28 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

SSRI medications writes:

> My husband was normal except chest pains which his doctor stated was

> probably a panic attack.

>

Your only cause of action is going to be against the quack who gave him all

these drugs. You can't sue the pharmas. Call a good malpractice lawyer and

see what he says. What is your husband on now? Tofranil, I think you said???

That's a bad bad drug too. He'll never get better as long as he's on any

psych meds. It's doctors like your husband's who need to be sued until they can

no longer " practice " medicine. He used your husband as a guinea pig, so let

your fingers do the walking and get yourself a good medical malpractice lawyer.

" Blind Reason "

a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue

Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's

Unsafe At Any Dose

Latest Press Release

[Guest guest]

I get my medical student malpractice through HPSI (Healthcare Professional Services, Inc). They have been a very service oriented carrier. I am pleased with them.

The also carry malpractice for chiropractors, and you can obtain 1 mill/3 mill for roughly $700 per year. I just thought I would pass that along.

Anglen

[Guest guest]

I have received some enquiries about the company. They do offer tail coverage and their number is 1 800 423 1520

In a message dated 2/28/2005 6:05:31 PM US Mountain Standard Time, ang320@... writes:

I get my medical student malpractice through HPSI (Healthcare Professional Services, Inc). They have been a very service oriented carrier. I am pleased with them.

The also carry malpractice for chiropractors, and you can obtain 1 mill/3 mill for roughly $700 per year. I just thought I would pass that along.

Anglen

[Guest guest]

Some time ago I mentioned a malpractice carrier to people on this group. Its Health Professoional Services 1-800-423-1520 and the agent I have deat with is Harvey. They handeled my medical malpractice during school and I thought they had outstanding service, better than any of the chiropractic carriers I had used (NCMIC, CMS and some other one I can't remember what it was). I know a couple of people on this group contacted me and told me that bought chiropractic malpractice through them and how much cheaper it was than the other policies they had.

I was just wondering how you felt their chiropractice service was and how your experience has been? I just graduated medical school and may have to take some time off before going into residency - and so may do chiropractic again for a year or so, and wonder how they have been as far as chiropractic malpractice service? I know their medical service was the best I have ever had.

Anglen

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/2006 12:53:25 PM US Mountain Standard Time, schneider@... writes:

I have been impressed so far with Health Professional Services and Harvey too.

Thanks I got that comment from several people. I know when doing rotations there were times I needed something done ThAT DAY and they went out of their way to get it done within a few hours. Thanks for the input.

Anglen