Re: Can Unbiased, RESPECTFUL, Open Discussion of Health Topics Be Achieved On This Forum???


"Kulacz" <drkulacz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ceb9dccd-2fa1-4488-ab23-6ae2119232f3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 11, 12:47 pm, Kulacz <drkul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 11, 12:37 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





> On Apr 11, 9:26 am, Kulacz <drkul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> .

> > You know exactly what I am saying. There are websites that have a sole
> > mission to discredit any "alternative" thinking regardless of the
> > truth and never comment on the problems in "conventional" medicine.
> > (again,I dislike both those terms.)

> You know Kulacz, when I first saw your name, and I didn't know you
> from
> shinola, I researched your name on the internet, and I was a little
> upset with what
> I read. But there are two sides to every story. And then there were
> comments by
> people here about you that were equally as upsetting.

> Here is my question to you -- if what is published out on the internet
> about you,
> is not true, what are you doing to get rid of it, and why do you
> believe it is still there?
> Is it because you were a holistic dentist, and that you did not
> practice the accepted
> good housekeeping seal of approval dentistry?

> I'd like to learn more about holistic dentistry--not that I happen to
> want to find a holistic
> dentist but I'd like to hear about your previous career path, and why
> you choose that path?
> And then I'd like to hear in your own words (the Reader's digest
> condensed version is fine)
> what happened to you. It is on topic in this forum.

> Thank you.

Bee:
You could have been nearly as upset as I am about what is said about
me on the internet.
Most of it is pure srap with the sole intention of destrying mt
reputation
I will post the condensed version later.
Suffice to say Do not believe everything that you read on the
internet.
This is one reason why I am very sensitive to posts of defamation.
It has hapenned to me in a big way.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here are the basics:



Kulacz View profile
More options Apr 11, 4:41 pm

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: Kulacz <drkul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Apr 11 2008 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: Information About Posters On This Forum Is Coming To
Light
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
author
On Apr 11, 4:28 pm, Kulacz <drkul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Apr 11, 1:47 am, schu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Schultz) wrote:


> > For those of us who believe in objective reality, there most certainly > > is
> > a question of his being honest or not honest.


> Why is that? Do you have a relative that is connected or was
> connected to the NY Board of Education?
> (aren't they the ones that do the licensing in NY?).


I have not heard a reason for questioning my honesty.
Anybody questioning my hinesty, please state your exact reasons for
such a statement.


As for the NY State Education department:
Here is the abbvreviated situation.
The dental board of NY came ofter me for extreacting two root canal
teeth that the patient
came in to have extracted. One tooth had a vertical fracture. Both
teeth had X-ray patholgy confirmed
by an MD, PhD Radiologist. Biopsy of the bone showed osteomyelitis.
Cultures showed multiple bacteria and candida albicans. The cultures
were clean catch deep bone cultures and not contaminants.


The main charge against me was gross misconduct and negligence for
extracting these two teeth.
Another charge was that my website stated that I changed the focus of
my practice after learning of some of the problems with certain dental
procedures. They claimed that was also a violation since they said
that it implied that I was stating that I was superior to other
dentists.


I was never granted an interview even though I repeatedly requested
one. The lease for my office was due and i could not sign a new lease
since I now have a letter fromNYSED that they are going to revoke my
license.


My malpractice company would not cover this board action so I acted as
my own attorney.
I tape recorded all comversations with the attorney for NYS for my own
protection in case they claimed that I said something that I never
said.


Senator Clinton wrote a letter on my behalf to have my case re-
reviewed after looking at the data that I presented. Several months go
by and the attorney for NYS calls me and said that a 3 dentist panel
reviewed all of the data and came to the same conclusion as the first
dentist reviewer.
I asked him how these three dentists from different parts of NYS
reviewed all of the data. He said THEY DIDN'T!!
I said they didn't. Who is guilty of misconduct here.


His reply was. "You are a smart guy. You are not naive. You know what
is going on here. Forget about justice. It is not a
matter of right or wrong. The board has an agenda and they ae going to
get you. It is not even about this particular case."
Apparently I was too vocal with my book and non-paying radio show. I
was told by the attorney that they wanted to silence me.


If somebody were to tell me this story 10 years ago I would not have
believed them. But it hapenned to me and it is quite real. And I have
since learned that it has happenned to others as I had a state
assemblyman attempt to assist me in this matter.


Now I have an admission that I was set up.


I wait for an informal settlement conference to be scheduled. They ask
me my available dates so they can schedule accordingly. The only date
that I could not make it was a Tuesday morning. Several months go by
and I get a call. The hearing is scheduled for a Tuesday morning!!!
What a surprise.


Now I call the Chancellor of the NYSED and tell him that the board of
regents, the dental board and the NYSED is corrupt and play part of
the tape.


The next day iI get a call from the attorney that I tape recorded
admitting that I was set up.;
The stae decided to drop all charges if I would agree on a plea that
my records were not ADA standard.
They needed something to get me on or they lose immunity and can be
charged with malicious prosecution.


I did not want to accept that so I called an attorney. The attorney
told me that it would cost a minimum of $250,000 to fight this case
and regardless of the outcome they will find some way to get me.
So I settled on the consent which now allowed me to keep my license. I
had no more money or time.


Now I want to go back into practice. I apply for active malpractice
insurance. I cannot get insurance because the insurance companies will
not write a new active policy (I had a tail policy through this
nightmare ordeal) for anybody that has any blemish on their record.
They claim that they are losing money in NYS.


So I attempt to have this ruling corrected. I go to the Governor. They
have no jurisdiction. The AG, Inspector General do not nandle these
cases. There is nobody in government to turn to for help.
The NYSED would not even grant a freedom of information request as
they have written the law to exclude board actions from these
requests.


I did find an assemblyman that knew of the abuse of power by ther
state boards. After reviewing my case he agreed to help.


I submitted an appeal.
The appeal was denied.
Interestingly, in the letter from Mr. Catone of OPD, he stated that
they did not disagree that my treatment was correct. They agreed that
I performed correct treatment!!
However he stated that I signed the consent regarding ADA records so
the case was closed.


I reminded him that the original dentists stated that the main charge
for revocation was the claim that the extraction of the two teeth,
which they now agree was correct, was originally deemed gross conduct
and negligence. I suggested that these dentists should be re-trained
since they were wrong in their initial claim and the attack on me was
malicious prosecution. Of course I received no response.


Websites supporting the original NYS dental board agenda put out
postings in an atempt to ruin my reputation.They posting things out of
context such as implying that I was treating cancer etc. Other
internet items about me were palin lies.
We all know that this type of activity is commonplace.


I had a lot more money when I practiced 'conventional" dentistry even
though I used many vonventional treatments in my practice.Now i have
basically none.
My peers liked me.
I was not open to abusive board action.
I was not a target for frivolous lawsuits.
I had a wonderful life


My only incentive was to do the right thing.


This has taken a tremendous toll on me my family.


There is much more to this story but space is limited.

Dr. Kulacz, Do you remember Bill Combs butcher job of the Dr Jacobson witch hunt?

Here it is and my replies. He never did answer my final questions.

http://www.toxicteeth.net/MinnKipsSummary.pdf.

[site has been highjacked]

"But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing'
charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files
were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of
these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his
license."


If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury,"
then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson?


Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They
must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of
laws that did not relate to mercury.


One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry.
Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an
overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.


If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated
below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this
dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless
of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams.


His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases tends to refute the
point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly
prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other
eleven cases show that he wasn't.


Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair
prosecution?


- dentaldoc


This article states:


"But in 1995, the Board sent Dr. Jacobson a 'notice of hearing'
charging him with fraud and incompetence. Of 21 patients whose files
were used as of the charges against him, the allegations about ten of
these patients mentioned mercury. In 1996, Dr. Jacobson gave up his
license."


If the "allegations about ten of these patients mentioned mercury,"
then what were the other eleven charges against Dr. Jacobson?

Oh, my, this is called desperation to find something wrong, and divert from the
issue.

Why do you dentists skip over the real issues and pick out something, you think
will dismiss the whole issue??

This is an example of a witch hunt, much like those of Barrett. If you were on
your toes, you will note the fraud charges thrown in are pretty much the same.

The real issue is, a dentist has a gag order, and should NOT tell his patients
of the risks.

This is the works of EVIL *organized medicine and dentistry.*

NOW, laws are being made that the dentists posts these risks in their office.

Why is it, the ADA and AMA don''t want people to know what is going IN their
mouths?????

Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They
must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of
laws that did not relate to mercury.

Right on, that's how the trick is done. Always the same ole, same ole.

One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry.
Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an
overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.

You mean *one* charge, like shhhhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell your patierts the
truth?!?!

If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated
below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this
dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless
of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams.


*Below Standards* Standards set by whom?????


The words *mercury free* are below standards.


*His advoidance of mercury was considerated to be evidence of *incompetence and
fraud*



His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases


Say what?!?!


Using no mercury is malpractice??????


tends to refute the



point that the author seemingly tried to make: that he was unfairly
prosecuted due only to his stand on amalgams. Clearly, the other
eleven cases show that he wasn't.


Oh??? Like what?


Who made these charges???


Delta Dental employees???


The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it
clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so called
*investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the
words *mercury free*.
Concoeted charges, such as:


He didn't wash his hands.


Not seeing decay.


Yelled at a patient.



Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair
prosecution?


WOW!!!!!


The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL.


It is unbelievable you can't see it.


YOU learn the LIES well from dental school.


PATHETIC!!


Jan

You can plainly see what they are, the same ole same ole used for every witch
hunt.



Evidently these other eleven charges did not mention mercury. They
>must have been about other matters of malpractice or violations of
>laws that did not relate to mercury.


Uh huh, like I said, the same ole same ole. Was he also charged with using the
wrong color of toliet paper??


It is your choice of the word malpractice, is it not?


Plus the words, violations of the law??



One charge is sufficient to remove a license to practice dentistry.
>Eleven charges, unrelated to mercury, would tend to show an
>overwhelming pattern of substandard practice.


What overwheming pattern of substandard practice?


Substandard and overwhelming are your cloice of words, are they not?


Which is overwhelming and which is substandard??



If indeed this author is correct, and eleven patients were treated
>below standards with no relation to the mercury question, then this
>dentist should not be allowed to practice on the public -- regardless
>of any position he happened to take on dental amalgams.
*Below Standards* Standards set by whom?????
In most states, the standards are set by the state legislature.


And they get their standards from whom?



His pattern of malpractice in non-mercury cases

Say what?!?!


Using no mercury is malpractice??????
I never said that.


The reference I made was to the eleven NON-mercury cases in which he
was charged with malpractice/substandard practice by the board.



Well, no, those are your words.



Since
these cases did not involve mercury, I refer to them as the
non-mercury cases.
Oh??? Like what?
Like the three cases you list below.


He didn't wash his hands.



Not seeing decay.


Yelled at a patient.



That's malpracitice/substandard???



Who made these charges???

Didn't you know that when you posted the reference?



Yes, I knew, I am asking you if you knew? I should have posted, complaints.



Generally, charges
are made by a branch of the state government. In most states this is
the government's dental board.


Uh huh, *organized dentistry*



The 14 patients who files were used were friends of Dr Jacobson an made it
clear to the board, in writing, they wanted nothing to do with this so
called
*investion* which started immediately after he placed an ad which used the
words *mercury free*.


Concoeted charges, such as:



He didn't wash his hands.

Not seeing decay.


Yelled at a patient.
Surely you don't mean to imply that these charges should be taken
lightly.



LOL!!!


My word this is certainly *fraud* and *incompetent* conduct.



(I don't know what an *investion* is.)


Righto, ask someone to help you figure it out.



With regard to the charge of "Yelled at a patient," this seems
unlikely to result in a loss of license.


Yes.


Along with , not washed his hands, and not seeing decay.


Those don't sound one bit made up/concocted. do they?



But if his patients all
rallied to his defense, then HOW did the state learn that he had
yelled at a patient?


It was made up!


Did any of his patients say that??



Perhaps at least one of his patients reported this to the board. I doubt that


the state had any other way of


learning that he "Yelled at a patient" unless that patient complained to the


board.


Give me a break. A patient is going to a board because a dentist yelled at
them.


You need to go back and read what the evidence showed about who made the
complaints.


Then read how his patients knew this was a chop job and wantedd nothing to do
with it.



With regard to the charge of "Not seeing decay," this is more serious.
Many patients go to a dentist specifically to find out if they have
any tooth decay. If decay is present and the dentist misses it,
serious complications can potentially occur to the patient. If a
dentist continually misses an obvious diagnosis, state action is warranted.


In fact he did see it, he noted it in the file and made several attempts to get
the patient to come back and get it fixed, the patient refused.



By far, the most serious charge is that of "He didn't wash his hands."
In this age of deadly communicable diseases, the prevention of
infection must be foremost in the minds of all members of the health
care professions. It has been known since the 1880s that the simple
act of washing one's hands has a


dramatic effect in lowering the rate



of disease transmission in the healthcare setting.


Who saw him not wash his hand??? Do your patients follow you in the bathroom??


I suggest to you, if everyone who didn't wash their hands, lost their licenses,
we would have very few licensced people in any field.


Doctors can cut off the wrong leg and still keep their license.


<snip>


Cutting to the chase, the fact he used the words mercuy free is EXACTLY why he
was harassed and the investigaters worked mighty hard to come up with this
trumpted up charges. It took them over twelve years.


The board membesr made it clear tey were upset with his refusal of the use of
mercury.



Are there any cases on record that would better illustrate unfair
>prosecution?

WOW!!!!!
The ENTIRE case was nothing, but a farce from those who are EVIL.
Even if we dismiss the amalgam-related charges as "nothing," what
about the other eleven charges?



I didn't see eleven, did you?



It is unreasonable to say "The ENTIRE case was nothing" without
examining the charges that did not even involve amalgam.


No, it is totally unreasonable that the broad took twelve years to get these
charges made up!!!



Was it true
that he didn't diagnose dental caries? Was it true that he didn't even
wash his hands?


B I N G O!!!!


Was it true sixty of his patients jammed the hearing room??


WHAT does that tell you?


Did you read all the steps taken to get these charges made. UNFAIR and
DISHONEST tactics.??


*Although the Humphrey's office and the board sought to peddle the notion that
its investigation of Gary was not centered on his refusal to use amalgam, the
Star Trubune was not fooled. The MN. broard of dentistry had accused the
dentist of fraud and and misconduct for allegedly pushing an expensive that
have never been proven to work, removing peoples' fillings call amalgams to
free them of mercury poisoning*


I all comes back to the gag order.



YOU learn the LIES well from dental school.
Is this meant as an ad hominem attack?


No, it is the TRUTH.



What "lies" are in my posting??
I can't find any.


WOW!!!!


Dentists have LIED for so long, they know longer know what is a LIE..


Your choice of words and DECEIVING are LIES.


There was NO fraud!!!


There was NO imcompetence!!!!!


There was NO Malpractice!!


There was NO substandards.



PATHETIC!!
Jan
No need to get insulting. I did not insult you.


There is a great need to get real and stop trying to deceive.



My point remains -- are there any other cases that would better
illustrate the author's claim of unfair prosecution? This particular
case involved many charges, and only half of them seemed to involve
amalgam. Instead of defending a doctor who apparently was also charged
with failure to diagnose decay, and failure to practice infection
control for his patients, wouldn't it be more effective for an author
to put forward a case that involved ONLY amalgam-related issues?

- dentaldoc

Your point is a LIE.

Jan


.