Lähettäjä: Soijuv Lähetetty: 12.9.2006 9:08
Paikalla olleen kuuntelijan raportti tri Jonesin kuulemisesta:
Tri Jones on hoitanut borrelioosia sairastavia lapsia 30 vuoden ajan (yli 10 000 lasta). Hän joutui oikeiden kuultavaksi, koska oli kirjoittanut antibiootteja puhelinkeskustelun perusteella lapselle, joka asui kaukana Jonesin klinikasta. Hän oli aiemmin kylläkin tarkastanut lapsen. Äiti on sairaanhoitaja eikä katsonut tarpeelliseksi tuoda lasta vuoden aikana Jonesin luokse, koska antibioottihoito auttoi lasta. Syytteen taustalta löytyy avioeroprosessissa vaimolleen hankaluuksia haluava aviomies sekä tietyt lääkärit (esim. Shapiro), jotka haluavat poistaa työmaailmasta sellaiset lääkärit, jotka hoitavat borrelioosia pidemmillä antibioottihoidoilla eli virallisista hoitosuosituksista ja vakuutusyhtiöiden kannasta poikkeavasti.
Mm. tällaista on borrelioosisota maailmalla.
I got there around 9:30 and Dr. P was in the hotseat. He was being asked by the prosecution if negative blood tests rule out lyme disease diagnosis.
"No"...he said that the testing was only used to support the diagnosis as there is currently no gold standard accurate test.
He said that he has sent the same blood to several labs including stonybrook and igenex and three different results. This could be due to different strains of borrilia being tested.
Someone from the board asked if Igenex was more likely to give a positive test compared to the CDC.
Dr. P said that he didn't want to be difficult but the question isn't relevant since the CDC doesn't have a test. But that the critera used by the CDC is different from Igenex and he really didn't know if one would be more likely to give a positive or not...
Prosecution asked what is the value of taking a patient history and physicial exam...to get a diagnosis.
Dr. P said very important and gave an articulated discussion on why...He was aked if he knew the charges against Dr. Jones and he said no..
Board member said that Dr. J had diagnosed a patient over the phone without a physical examination and kept a patient on antibiotics for an long time without follow up...
They asked Dr. P, "Would you do this in your practise?"
Dr. P said that he personally may not have done this but understands that both he and Dr. Jones are inundated with calls from desperate patients from all over the country and world...
He said he knows telemedicine is going on all around us but doesn't know the laws about that...(neither did the board member).
(We later learned that Dr. J did a presumptive diagnosis for the kids over the phone but did a full physicial when the patients traveled w/their mother to New Haven....they didn't follow up in person for a year after because their oral abx treatment was going well and mom was a competent ER nurse who did the follow-up since no local doc could be found in Nevada)
There was much discussion about the value of testing and getting a seropositie test...Board asked if Igenex comes back negative can a person still have lyme?
"Yes"...He says that you need to look at band but 0 bands wouldn't support a lyme diagnosis...although he has seen patients who have had bulls eye rash, positive PCR, and all the symptoms come up with no bands ...
He said things are evolving quickly with lyme and other markers are being looked at ...he is particularly fond of the CD57 test....it will be depressed in long term lyme disease but not other chronic illnesses.
He doesn't encourage testing of healthy people, there is no data supporting treating asymptomatic lyme...(His goal is to treat till symptom free)
3% of people will test pos for babs on Cape Cod.
When asked about what symptoms are lyme he said headache myalgia fatigue but not the kind we all get...then he said like right now I'm kinda tired and starting to get a headache....(everyone laughed)
He said theis is a chronic multisytem illness.
Given the facts of a neg serology on very ill patients, diagnostic trial of abx to produce herx will confirm the diagnosis of a spiroketal parasitic infection... since teenagers get years of abx for acne, the risks of this far outweight the benefits.
Dr. Jones was somber, intelligent and his testimony was compelling...I'll see if I remember others help me out...
He said that he had been treating lyme for 30 years and helped over 10 thousand children. He believes this trial came about due to a father wanting to inflict pain on his wife during divorce proceedings.
He believes Dr. Shapiro wants to get him and other lyme docs out of practice because he and his collegues need to purpetuate the outdated and harmful guidelines put forward by the IDSA.
He stated that even the CDC recognises lyme as a clinical diagnosis and if 10,000 patients doesn't give him "clical" expertise than what does.
He feels that since Dr. Raxlen was successful in his lyme trial years ago then he should be to since lyme is an evolving disease and treatment and testing were constantly changing.
I was in tears watching this poor doc...I think the board was riveted to their chairs as he spoke eloquently, calmly and dead serious....
TRI JONESIN KUULEMINEN
Valvojat: Jatta1001, Borrelioosiyhdistys, Bb
TRI JONESIN KUULEMINEN
Viimeksi muokannut Bb, Pe Maalis 06, 2009 19:35. Yhteensä muokattu 1 kertaa.
Lähettäjä: Soijuv Lähetetty: 13.9.2006 9:52
Lääkäri Jones lähetti tukijoukoilleen eilen viestin, jossa kertoi seuraavan kuulemisen olevan 28.9. Jonesin antamien hoitojen puolesta tulevat puhumaan voimakkaasti myös äiti ja lapset, joiden tapauksesta kuulemisessa on kyse. Jonesin mukaan tuhannet lapset tulevat hyötymään mikäli tutkinnan tulos on myönteinen. Silloin muutkin lääkärit uskaltavat kirjoittaa pitkiä antibioottihoitoja ilman että heidän tarvitsee pelätä joutuvansa niiden johdosta kuultavaksi ja mahdollisesti menettämään lääkärinoikeutensa.
Charles Ray Jones, MD
Susan L. Marra, ND
Madison Towers
111 Park Street
New Haven, CT 06511
September 12, 2006
Dear Valued Friends and Patients;
I have just heard from Attorney Pollack that the next scheduled date for the continuation of my hearings is Thursday, September, 28, 2006 at 10:00a.m. in the Legislative Office Building, Hartford, CT, Room 1E. As all of you know, this has been a rather tedious and difficult fight for the long term antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease and coinfections in children.
However, this hearing is particularly important. The mother and the two children for which this hearing is all about will be testifying in regards to the outcome of my Lyme Disease treatment for them.
The mother is very sympathetic to my situation and wants to help me in any way to ensure success and continued medical practice. But again, I need your support as well. If you are able to attend my 5th hearing on September 28, 2006 for 2 or 3 hours, I would greatly appreciate your presence. The children in question are happy, well and will demonstrate that my work is worthy and correct. Please help me to continue fighting this very important pediatric medical issue.
Thousands of children will benefit from a positive outcome of my hearings, and other physicians will be able to continue practicing without fear that they too may find themselves against a medical board for less than appropriate charges.
Thank you for your continued support, and your presence at this particular
hearing would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
Charles Ray Jones, MD
Lääkäri Jones lähetti tukijoukoilleen eilen viestin, jossa kertoi seuraavan kuulemisen olevan 28.9. Jonesin antamien hoitojen puolesta tulevat puhumaan voimakkaasti myös äiti ja lapset, joiden tapauksesta kuulemisessa on kyse. Jonesin mukaan tuhannet lapset tulevat hyötymään mikäli tutkinnan tulos on myönteinen. Silloin muutkin lääkärit uskaltavat kirjoittaa pitkiä antibioottihoitoja ilman että heidän tarvitsee pelätä joutuvansa niiden johdosta kuultavaksi ja mahdollisesti menettämään lääkärinoikeutensa.
Charles Ray Jones, MD
Susan L. Marra, ND
Madison Towers
111 Park Street
New Haven, CT 06511
September 12, 2006
Dear Valued Friends and Patients;
I have just heard from Attorney Pollack that the next scheduled date for the continuation of my hearings is Thursday, September, 28, 2006 at 10:00a.m. in the Legislative Office Building, Hartford, CT, Room 1E. As all of you know, this has been a rather tedious and difficult fight for the long term antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease and coinfections in children.
However, this hearing is particularly important. The mother and the two children for which this hearing is all about will be testifying in regards to the outcome of my Lyme Disease treatment for them.
The mother is very sympathetic to my situation and wants to help me in any way to ensure success and continued medical practice. But again, I need your support as well. If you are able to attend my 5th hearing on September 28, 2006 for 2 or 3 hours, I would greatly appreciate your presence. The children in question are happy, well and will demonstrate that my work is worthy and correct. Please help me to continue fighting this very important pediatric medical issue.
Thousands of children will benefit from a positive outcome of my hearings, and other physicians will be able to continue practicing without fear that they too may find themselves against a medical board for less than appropriate charges.
Thank you for your continued support, and your presence at this particular
hearing would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
Charles Ray Jones, MD
Viimeksi muokannut Bb, Pe Maalis 06, 2009 19:37. Yhteensä muokattu 1 kertaa.
Lähettäjä: Soijuv Lähetetty: 6.11.2006 8:49
Lääkäri Jonesia vastaan nostettu oikeudenkäynti jatkuu edelleen. Syyskuun lopulla oikeudessa kuultiin lasten äitiä. Äiti on ammatiltaan ensiapuun ja traumatologiaan erikoistunut sairaanhoitaja joka on esim. kirjoittanut oppaan punkeista ja niiden välittämistä taudeista. Syytteen mukaan Jones alkoi hoitaa lapsia heitä näkemättä. Äidin mukaan Jones jatkoi paikallisen lääkärin aloittamaa antibioottihoitoa puhelinkeskustelun perusteella. Myöhemmin Jones tutki lapset erittäin perusteellisesti. Äidin mukaan kukaan toinen lääkäri ei ollut aiemmin tutkinut lapsia niin perusteellisesti.
Syytteen Jonesia vastaan nosti lasten isä eikä äiti. Isän taustalta löytyy aiemman vaimon pahoinpitelyä ym. väkivaltaisuutta. Hän mm. uhkasi sellaisia paikallisia lääkäreitä, jotka olivat halukkaita hoitamaan ja seuraamaan lasten hoitoa. Tämän jälkeen lääkärit kieltäytyivät hoitamasta lapsia. Isä ei halunnut jakaa lasten hoidosta aiheutuneita lääke-/hoitokuluja. Äiti oli lisäksi huolissaan lasten terveydestä ja haki sen vuoksi yksinhuoltajuutta. Isä vastasi tapahtuneeseen nostamalla syytteen Jonesia vastaan.
Syyttäjä yritti kyseenalaistaa äidin asiantuntijuuden terveyttä koskevissa asioissa, mutta epäonnistui. Istuntosalissa tultiin selkeästi vakuuttuneiksi äidin kyvystä tunnistaa punkit, borrelioosin oireet, hoidot jne. Salissa useilla oli kyyneleet silmissä kun äiti kertoi lasten oireista ja taistelustaan saada hoitoa lapsilleen. Lapset olivat mukana oikeussalissa. Äiti kertoi lasten voivan Jonesin diagnoosin ja hoitojen ansiosta tällä hetkellä hyvin.
(Suom.huom. Ei voi kuin ihmetellä, mitä ihmiset ovat valmiita tekemään vahingoittaakseen toisiaan. Hämmästyttävintä asiassa on se tosiseikka, että muutamat lääkärit ovat mukana syyttämässä Jonesia. He ilmoittivat alussa, etteivät nosta syytettä mikäli Jones luopuu lääkärinvirastaan ja jää eläkkeelle. Koska Jones ei suostunut tähän, syyteprosessi lähti liikkeelle. Toisin sanoen syytteen nostaminen on tapahtunut heidän taholtaan jostakin muusta syystä kuin huolesta lasten terveyden puolesta.)
Dr. Jones Hearing Day 5 Summary
September 28, 2006
Well over 100 people were present in the tightly packed room, for the 5th day of the hearing against Dr. Jones (estimates say between 120 to 175)
There was just one witness testifying - R, the former wife of the man who had filed the complaint against Dr. Jones, with the health department of the State of CT. She testified regarding Dr. Jones treatment of her two children, and specifically addressed the charges against Dr. Jones, clarifying a number of points involved in these charges. Her two children, who had been diagnosed and treated by Dr. Jones, were in the courtroom with her.
One point in question has been whether Dr. Jones prescribed antibiotics to treat Lyme disease in children he had not seen. R´s testimony indicated that he had simply renewed a prescription for antibiotics for an illness diagnosed by a Nevada physician. No Lyme diagnosis had been made until the children were seen and examined.
Another point, the question of Dr. Jones involvement with the school prior to seeing the children, was also clarified. The school psychologist, faced with the problem of expelling R´s son due to an uncontrolled chronic cough and multiple behavior problems, telling the mother that she did think there was something wrong with the child, beyond simply behavioral issues, called Dr. Jones to discuss the matter. He did not diagnose Lyme at that time, advising the psychologist that the children did have an appointment to be examined and evaluated for Lyme, and suggested that an interim measure, instead of expelling the child, might be to place him on homebound instruction. The school did that, the child, who was failing everything, received instruction at home, was eventually diagnosed with Lyme, and, once treated, returned to school at the beginning of the next school year. R testified to how well her son was now doing at school, both behaviorally and academically, telling the panel that her son began to like school, and look forward to going, for the first time in his life.
R poignantly told of her children´s medical history, ill from birth, and her valiant efforts to pursue answers, to find out what was causing their array of symptoms. Her own diagnosis of Lyme, by a physician in Florida, who thought the children might have been born with Lyme, led to her seeking out Dr. Jones, learning from her doctor that he was the best in the country where pediatric Lyme disease is concerned.
R´s extensive background as a nurse, with both ER and trauma experience was very impressive. She testified that, in addition to the possibility that her children were born with Lyme, she had told Dr. Jones that there had been tick-bites. Her ability to recognize ticks carrying Lyme disease, previously called into question by the health department attorney, was answered well by R when she advised the panel of her professional background. In addition to her work as a nurse, she had worked for the forest service for 5 years, and had, in fact, written a report that included identification of ticks, including Ixodes Scapularis. Clearly, this supported Dr. Jones testimony that R was able to identify the type of tick that had bitten her children!
R testified as to the extent that the children´s father went to in order to discredit her. She felt compelled, due to financial problems, to pursue shared payment of medical bills, and she had to address her children´s expressed concerns about their physical safety when with their father. Actions R took led to her ex-husband´s threat that he would seek sole custody, and allege that R had mental problems. R´s testimony also attested to the children´s father making threats against various physicians, if they were to treat the children.
R painted the picture of a punitive father, with a background of abuse of his ex-wife, then his children, who did not become involved with the children´s medical care until he was threatened with the possibility of having to pay for the cost. There was no attempt on the part of the health department attorney to challenge the picture of a vindictive father whose agenda was contrary to the best interests of his children when he filed the complaint with the health department. Again, one must question why the CT Dept. of Health would file charges against Dr. Jones without investigating the source of the complaint, particularly since they claim the pursuit of Dr. Jones is NOT about Lyme disease!!
R testified regarding the problems her son was having in school academic, medical (among other things, the persistent cough) and behavioral. The school did not know what to do. R testified that she would have home-schooled him, but knew that her ex-husband would not agree to that. The school psychologist, to her credit, sought out Dr. Jones, to get input, in her attempts, it appears, to do her job provide an education for a complicated, difficult child. R was grateful that Dr. Jones made a suggestion that could work, and provide an education for her son.
R testified as to the thoroughness of Dr. Jones medical examination of her children. She testified that she was very impressed with his examination. I have never seen a doctor do that, except in trauma. She testified regarding the thorough record keeping she did, in order to provide Dr. Jones with the feedback he needed during the course of her children´s treatment. She had approached doctors regarding locally monitoring the children, and two agreed to do it, until they received threatening phone calls from her ex-husband, and that led to their backing down.
R refuted any allegation that the cause of her children´s symptoms was psychological. She said, You can´t alter an EEG, or the blood test results (anemia). She spoke of the times when her children were playing happily, then would suddenly be stricken with headaches so bad that they lay on the couch crying for hours.
R gave testimony regarding the severity of her children´s symptoms, and the wide array of symptoms (certainly supporting what is known about Lyme being a multi-system illness). Her testimony of the years and years of pursuit of medical diagnosis and treatment for her children, brought tears to the eyes of many. She certainly presented herself as a highly educated medical professional, and a compassionate mother, who did a wonderful job of parenting, in pursuing answers ever since the birth of her children.
She testified as to the current good health of her children, and their ability to function well, and attributes these facts to Dr. Jones diagnosis and treatment.
R´s testimony ended the 5th day of the hearing.
Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, BCD
Family Connections Center for Counseling
Lääkäri Jonesia vastaan nostettu oikeudenkäynti jatkuu edelleen. Syyskuun lopulla oikeudessa kuultiin lasten äitiä. Äiti on ammatiltaan ensiapuun ja traumatologiaan erikoistunut sairaanhoitaja joka on esim. kirjoittanut oppaan punkeista ja niiden välittämistä taudeista. Syytteen mukaan Jones alkoi hoitaa lapsia heitä näkemättä. Äidin mukaan Jones jatkoi paikallisen lääkärin aloittamaa antibioottihoitoa puhelinkeskustelun perusteella. Myöhemmin Jones tutki lapset erittäin perusteellisesti. Äidin mukaan kukaan toinen lääkäri ei ollut aiemmin tutkinut lapsia niin perusteellisesti.
Syytteen Jonesia vastaan nosti lasten isä eikä äiti. Isän taustalta löytyy aiemman vaimon pahoinpitelyä ym. väkivaltaisuutta. Hän mm. uhkasi sellaisia paikallisia lääkäreitä, jotka olivat halukkaita hoitamaan ja seuraamaan lasten hoitoa. Tämän jälkeen lääkärit kieltäytyivät hoitamasta lapsia. Isä ei halunnut jakaa lasten hoidosta aiheutuneita lääke-/hoitokuluja. Äiti oli lisäksi huolissaan lasten terveydestä ja haki sen vuoksi yksinhuoltajuutta. Isä vastasi tapahtuneeseen nostamalla syytteen Jonesia vastaan.
Syyttäjä yritti kyseenalaistaa äidin asiantuntijuuden terveyttä koskevissa asioissa, mutta epäonnistui. Istuntosalissa tultiin selkeästi vakuuttuneiksi äidin kyvystä tunnistaa punkit, borrelioosin oireet, hoidot jne. Salissa useilla oli kyyneleet silmissä kun äiti kertoi lasten oireista ja taistelustaan saada hoitoa lapsilleen. Lapset olivat mukana oikeussalissa. Äiti kertoi lasten voivan Jonesin diagnoosin ja hoitojen ansiosta tällä hetkellä hyvin.
(Suom.huom. Ei voi kuin ihmetellä, mitä ihmiset ovat valmiita tekemään vahingoittaakseen toisiaan. Hämmästyttävintä asiassa on se tosiseikka, että muutamat lääkärit ovat mukana syyttämässä Jonesia. He ilmoittivat alussa, etteivät nosta syytettä mikäli Jones luopuu lääkärinvirastaan ja jää eläkkeelle. Koska Jones ei suostunut tähän, syyteprosessi lähti liikkeelle. Toisin sanoen syytteen nostaminen on tapahtunut heidän taholtaan jostakin muusta syystä kuin huolesta lasten terveyden puolesta.)
Dr. Jones Hearing Day 5 Summary
September 28, 2006
Well over 100 people were present in the tightly packed room, for the 5th day of the hearing against Dr. Jones (estimates say between 120 to 175)
There was just one witness testifying - R, the former wife of the man who had filed the complaint against Dr. Jones, with the health department of the State of CT. She testified regarding Dr. Jones treatment of her two children, and specifically addressed the charges against Dr. Jones, clarifying a number of points involved in these charges. Her two children, who had been diagnosed and treated by Dr. Jones, were in the courtroom with her.
One point in question has been whether Dr. Jones prescribed antibiotics to treat Lyme disease in children he had not seen. R´s testimony indicated that he had simply renewed a prescription for antibiotics for an illness diagnosed by a Nevada physician. No Lyme diagnosis had been made until the children were seen and examined.
Another point, the question of Dr. Jones involvement with the school prior to seeing the children, was also clarified. The school psychologist, faced with the problem of expelling R´s son due to an uncontrolled chronic cough and multiple behavior problems, telling the mother that she did think there was something wrong with the child, beyond simply behavioral issues, called Dr. Jones to discuss the matter. He did not diagnose Lyme at that time, advising the psychologist that the children did have an appointment to be examined and evaluated for Lyme, and suggested that an interim measure, instead of expelling the child, might be to place him on homebound instruction. The school did that, the child, who was failing everything, received instruction at home, was eventually diagnosed with Lyme, and, once treated, returned to school at the beginning of the next school year. R testified to how well her son was now doing at school, both behaviorally and academically, telling the panel that her son began to like school, and look forward to going, for the first time in his life.
R poignantly told of her children´s medical history, ill from birth, and her valiant efforts to pursue answers, to find out what was causing their array of symptoms. Her own diagnosis of Lyme, by a physician in Florida, who thought the children might have been born with Lyme, led to her seeking out Dr. Jones, learning from her doctor that he was the best in the country where pediatric Lyme disease is concerned.
R´s extensive background as a nurse, with both ER and trauma experience was very impressive. She testified that, in addition to the possibility that her children were born with Lyme, she had told Dr. Jones that there had been tick-bites. Her ability to recognize ticks carrying Lyme disease, previously called into question by the health department attorney, was answered well by R when she advised the panel of her professional background. In addition to her work as a nurse, she had worked for the forest service for 5 years, and had, in fact, written a report that included identification of ticks, including Ixodes Scapularis. Clearly, this supported Dr. Jones testimony that R was able to identify the type of tick that had bitten her children!
R testified as to the extent that the children´s father went to in order to discredit her. She felt compelled, due to financial problems, to pursue shared payment of medical bills, and she had to address her children´s expressed concerns about their physical safety when with their father. Actions R took led to her ex-husband´s threat that he would seek sole custody, and allege that R had mental problems. R´s testimony also attested to the children´s father making threats against various physicians, if they were to treat the children.
R painted the picture of a punitive father, with a background of abuse of his ex-wife, then his children, who did not become involved with the children´s medical care until he was threatened with the possibility of having to pay for the cost. There was no attempt on the part of the health department attorney to challenge the picture of a vindictive father whose agenda was contrary to the best interests of his children when he filed the complaint with the health department. Again, one must question why the CT Dept. of Health would file charges against Dr. Jones without investigating the source of the complaint, particularly since they claim the pursuit of Dr. Jones is NOT about Lyme disease!!
R testified regarding the problems her son was having in school academic, medical (among other things, the persistent cough) and behavioral. The school did not know what to do. R testified that she would have home-schooled him, but knew that her ex-husband would not agree to that. The school psychologist, to her credit, sought out Dr. Jones, to get input, in her attempts, it appears, to do her job provide an education for a complicated, difficult child. R was grateful that Dr. Jones made a suggestion that could work, and provide an education for her son.
R testified as to the thoroughness of Dr. Jones medical examination of her children. She testified that she was very impressed with his examination. I have never seen a doctor do that, except in trauma. She testified regarding the thorough record keeping she did, in order to provide Dr. Jones with the feedback he needed during the course of her children´s treatment. She had approached doctors regarding locally monitoring the children, and two agreed to do it, until they received threatening phone calls from her ex-husband, and that led to their backing down.
R refuted any allegation that the cause of her children´s symptoms was psychological. She said, You can´t alter an EEG, or the blood test results (anemia). She spoke of the times when her children were playing happily, then would suddenly be stricken with headaches so bad that they lay on the couch crying for hours.
R gave testimony regarding the severity of her children´s symptoms, and the wide array of symptoms (certainly supporting what is known about Lyme being a multi-system illness). Her testimony of the years and years of pursuit of medical diagnosis and treatment for her children, brought tears to the eyes of many. She certainly presented herself as a highly educated medical professional, and a compassionate mother, who did a wonderful job of parenting, in pursuing answers ever since the birth of her children.
She testified as to the current good health of her children, and their ability to function well, and attributes these facts to Dr. Jones diagnosis and treatment.
R´s testimony ended the 5th day of the hearing.
Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, BCD
Family Connections Center for Counseling