Yes, I'd like to know this too!
Posted by CaliforniaLyme (Member # 7136) on :
Me too!!!! (It's raining raining RAINING here-)
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
me too!! up!
Posted by AliG (Member # 9734) on :
Where are the troops with the update?
I hope they're busy celebrating!
Posted by merrygirl (Member # 12041) on :
I can't find any info anywhere!!
I hope all went well!
Melissa
Posted by PinchotGail (Member # 5066) on :
We should have heard something by now....5:35..
Home sick w/ 2 sick daughters ......love this time of year.......NOT!!!!!
Gail
Posted by Vermont_Lymie (Member # 9780) on :
Dying to hear about it...well, they did have a full busy day! I am sure someone will pop up overnight to fill us in.
Posted by artur737 (Member # 11151) on :
Our troops are still not here.
But look, the media got the news already:
December 18, 2007
Medical board approves probation, fine for controversial doctor
HARTFORD, Conn. - A medical examining board has unanimously approved two years probation and a $10,000 fine for a New Haven-area pediatrician whose treatment of Lyme disease has been called into question.
The Connecticut Medical Examining Board also voted to require another doctor to randomly review Dr. Charles Ray Jones' patient records.
Jones says he plans to appeal, first to the board and then in Hartford Superior Court.
The board upheld state Department of Public Health allegations that Jones diagnosed Lyme disease in two Nevada children and prescribed antibiotics for them in 2004 and 2005 before ever examining them. He disputes that.
Jones has drawn support from across the country because he has ignored consensus treatment guidelines for Lyme disease and prescribed antibiotics to children with the ailment.
This whole fiasco was such a ridiculous diversion and meant to 'bring him down'.
Dr. J is a man of integrity. He DID NO WRONG!!!!
The children in question GOT BETTER!!
Posted by Allie (Member # 10778) on :
Yup -- Just got home from the hearing.
I'd say that there was a good showing of us lymies.
However, that medical examining board is a bunch of baffoooooooons. Clearly they had made up their minds ages ago.....
At least the State's attorney didn't get the "harsher" wording he had hoped for either.
Geepers.
Allie
Posted by Vermont_Lymie (Member # 9780) on :
Just spoke to Dilly, who is traveling from CT.
Sounded like a farce. Some of these Medical Board doctors are willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, the real agenda of this persecution -- the denial of clinical care for lyme and TBDs and promotion of the IDSA guidelines -- prevailed in the Medical Board's decision.
However, there is still alot of fight left in our group. And appeals left. Sounds like Dr. Jones' lawyer did a heroic job, and got a standing ovation from a large group of Dr. Jones patients and supporters. There were 150 letters of support for Dr. Jones -- a great show of letters.
Sorry, wish there was better news from CT.
[ 18. December 2007, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Vermont_Lymie ]
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
ugh. certainly not the news i wanted to hear today.
i feel so awful for everything dr. jones is being put through. he is well into his seventies, as we all know he could've taken the easy way out and retired long ago, or never taken on lyme in his practice in the first place. instead he is hands down the most dedicated pediatrician i've ever come across; he saves severely ill & disabled kids every day, kids who literally have nowhere else to turn and without his expertise & loving care, well.. i shudder to think where these children would be today. all at great personal sacrifice to his own well-being and career, as we see so clearly now.
at least they allowed him to keep his license, but i wonder if/how the probation period & 'random doctor reviews' will hinder his ability to treat his patients as he sees fit.
i agree that this is so much larger than just an attack on dr. jones. it's an attack on all our doctors, on our illness itself which the IDSA (ie, the organization in power) claims doesn't exist, on our right to access the treatment we need to get better. it's an attack on the entire lyme community.
but they better not think we're giving up. we'll fight back, even though we're sick and exhausted and drained of resources, until we're treated humanely, given the respect & dignity & longterm treatment we so need & deserve.
[ 18. December 2007, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: heiwalove ]
Posted by webmeg (Member # 13647) on :
Just a quick FYI on finding breaking news like this easily - go to Google. Then choose the "News" link at the very top. Then search on what you're looking for.
Usually stuff that was posted minutes ago / hours ago comes up which is nice when you're looking for something asap.
This was unfortunate what happened to Dr. Jones today. I usually see Dr. C on Mondays when I take my Mom for her Lyme IV treatment so I'll ask him his opinion on what happened. In the end I suppose it was no surprise. So frustrating.
Kudos for all that were able to attend today.
~webmeg
Posted by lou (Member # 81) on :
Are the medical board personnel immune from lawsuits based on their official performance? If so, maybe it is time for the CT legislature to remove that immunity. When those people get hit themselves with the consequences of their immoral behavior, things would change. Not all the medical boards in states across the U.S. have such immunity. TAKE IT AWAY IN CT!!!
Wouldn't it be better to contribute to a lawsuit going after these ******* than to have to keep defending a man who has done such good in the world?
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
For anyone who can afford to do so [can we afford NOT to?] PLEASE donate to Dr Jones legal fund. It would be a nice Christmas gift for such a hero to our nation's children.
Posted by Robin123 (Member # 9197) on :
Yes, I agree the medical board made the wrong decision. So is it just appeals or can we go after the medical board itself for being harmful to the population for denying them treatment for Lyme disease? And what do you mean, Lou, by all medical boards not having such immunity?
Posted by ConnieMc (Member # 191) on :
It is interesting to me that this went very much like the hearings for the Dr. J in NC. It was hard to watch all this happen, and it was also obvious to me that the NC Medical Board had their decision made from day 1.
Unfortunately, once those rules were put into place to "monitor" Dr. J (the probation and other physicians reviewing cases), it ended up being total harassment. They set out to get him out of the state, and they did. He ultimately gave up his NC license.
They did unannounced visits, they did things like call the office late afternoon and tell them the next morning they needed to have a certain 25 files for review pulled, etc.
I fear Dr. Jones is in for the same. The bad guys now know how to win, and they are applying this strategy to every doctor who will treat Lyme.
Wonder who is next?
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by lou: Are the medical board personnel immune from lawsuits based on their official performance? If so, maybe it is time for the CT legislature to remove that immunity. When those people get hit themselves with the consequences of their immoral behavior, things would change. Not all the medical boards in states across the U.S. have such immunity. TAKE IT AWAY IN CT!!!
Wouldn't it be better to contribute to a lawsuit going after these ******* than to have to keep defending a man who has done such good in the world?
Sounds good to me!!
Good to see you, lou!! Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by ConnieMc: It is interesting to me that this went very much like the hearings for the Dr. J in NC. It was hard to watch all this happen, and it was also obvious to me that the NC Medical Board had their decision made from day 1.
Yep. Same song, second verse.
Posted by Vermont_Lymie (Member # 9780) on :
The thing that amazes me is that physicians on this Medical Board seem to think that they can get away with deliberately and clearly ignoring known facts.
Facts ignored in their "deliberation" include the substantial amount of evidence and peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate that lyme blood tests are not 100% accurate, that there are false negatives.
Dilly shared one (of several) telling moments that revealed the real agenda of this persecution of Dr. Jones.
It was clear that a number of folks on the Medical Board did not even bother learning about the case before this final ``deliberation'' today. One of these ignorant doctors asked ``what is the gist of the case?''
One of the doctors on the board, a woman whose first name is Anne, said, ``These children never had lyme, they never had the disease.''
It is ``the big lie approach'' - the board is saying that the children Dr. Jones treated never had lyme!
And how do they know this -- because the Medical Board said that the blood tests were negative, and "there is no lyme in Nevada."
How DO they get away with the stuff?
All you need to do is look up the CDC website and see that Nevada has reported lyme disease; and any quick cursory check of the literature reveals published papers going more than 20 years back about seronegative lyme.
Hopefully the facts and the truth will come out in the appeal.
Posted by Tracy9 (Member # 7521) on :
I'll try to post some stuff now, more later...
My husband and I were there all day. It was grueling, exhausting, tense, dramatic....many ups and downs. I took copious notes.
I really want to share lots of info but am SO exhausted. I am totally, totally drained.
I will post details in a bit. But bottom line; the sanctions were given, but the Dept of Public Health Attorney asked for several modifications that would have been MUCH, MUCH WORSE and they did NOT go through. That part was good.
Also, there is good grounds for appeal. Some very strange things happened today; and I am not able to post them for fear of giving the play book to the other team; but something new happened today, and Dr. Jone's attorney said it could "blow this whole thing out of the water."
Sorry to be so mysterious, but just want to let you know there is hope for an appeal based on new information.....but I'm afraid to say much more. It wasn't part of the proceedings, and I only know about it because I'm directly involved. Just a bizarre twist of events I'm still kind of freaking out over...
So keep the faith; PLEASE donate if you can, there is still much work ahead. Atty Pollack said he is going to file something in the next few days, so hopefully more will become public then.
Will share my notes in a bit; need to recharge my batteries a bit!
Posted by jennyflyer (Member # 12792) on :
I couldn't make it today, which I'm very upset about. But at least I can donate to his fund.
Very bad, disheartenening day. In addition to this my company was bought out today, our future uncertain.
This was not the news I was hoping for today about Dr. J.
Posted by Aniek (Member # 5374) on :
Do we think the medical board is responding to the Attorney General's investigation of IDSA? Is Dr. Jones maybe caught in a political battle within the state?
Posted by shazdancer (Member # 1436) on :
Thanks, Tracy, Sheila, TC, Phyllis, RLDTF, and everyone who worked so hard on this, including all of you who attended today. Sadly, I could not go this time because of work, but I got my letters into the pile and hope it helped some.
I hope after you all have eaten and rested, you can come back and tell us EVERYthing!
Take care, Shaz
Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
okay, sorry to post again, but can i just say it makes me so mad that dr. jones is being targeted and charged for supposed misconduct (and the kids in question GOT BETTER under his care!), when the thousands of so-called 'doctors' we all collectively saw before we found an LLMD, many of whom denied we were ill at all, gave us steroids which worsened our conditions, refused to diagnose an obvious case of lyme, and perpetrated countless human rights abuses, are left alone to inflict who-knows-how-much harm on other/future patients.
argh. Posted by disturbedme (Member # 12346) on :
quote:Originally posted by heiwalove: [q] okay, sorry to post again, but can i just say it makes me so mad that dr. jones is being targeted and charged for supposed misconduct (and the kids in question GOT BETTER under his care!), when the thousands of so-called 'doctors' we all collectively saw before we found an LLMD, many of whom denied we were ill at all, gave us steroids which worsened our conditions, refused to diagnose an obvious case of lyme, and perpetrated countless human rights abuses, are left alone to inflict who-knows-how-much harm on other/future patients. [/q]
This reminds me of something I told my husband. Ducks and their guidelines are what's hurting people and not JUST people with lyme. I think LLMD's are more concerned with people -- no matter the illness they have. My parents, for example, went to their doctors for two different problems. The doctor didn't even test my mom for "supposed" arthritis and just ASSSUMES. How can that be safe and is that even correct to do?
And my dad, he went to his doctor for painful leg edema and his doctor did NOTHING except give him a water pill and told him to wear compression socks. The doctor didn't even give him a reason why his legs could be retaining water. Now, this is bad because ONE reason for leg edema is heart failure and my dad did just have a heart attack 5 or 6 years ago. Why didn't the doctor even think twice about that?!! I still don't know the reason my dad's legs are retaining water (hopefully it's not heart failure), but if it is and didn't find out until it's too late, isn't that something "ducks" should be held accountable for too? Ducks have done WORSE than any LLMD.
It makes me sick that ducks can get away with this sh*t (assuming and treating symptoms and not the CAUSE) and LLMD's are so compassionate and so understanding and they CARE! Ducks don't even come close.
Sadly, I don't even trust ducks anymore and would rather stick with my LLMD as my "GP".
[ 19. December 2007, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: disturbedme ]
Posted by Tracy9 (Member # 7521) on :
I know, that stuff happens all the time. One of the points Atty Pollack made was that they were targeting Dr Jones for something so miniscule.
Posted by AliG (Member # 9734) on :
Any way to tie the members of the CT medical board into the Atty General's IDSA investigation?
Posted by pineapple (Member # 11904) on :
Interesting info from the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners, just an FYI:
Board of Medical Examiners Rule 540-X-9-.11, Contact with Patients before Prescribing, states as follows:
(1) It is the position of the Board that prescribing drugs to an individual the prescriber has not personally examined is usually inappropriate. Before prescribing a drug, a physician should make an informed medical judgment based on the circumstances of the situation and on his or her training and experience. Ordinarily, this will require that the physician personally perform an appropriate history and physical examination, make a diagnosis, and formulate a therapeutic plan, a part of which might be a prescription. This process must be documented appropriately.
(2) Prescribing for a patient whom the physician has not personally examined may be suitable under certain circumstances. These may include, but not be limited to, admission orders for a patient newly admitted to a health care facility, prescribing for a patient of another physician for whom the prescriber is taking call, or continuing medication on a short-term basis for a new patient prior to the patient's first appointment. Established patients may not require a new history and physical examination for each new prescription, depending on good medical practice.
(3) It is the position of the Board that prescribing drugs to individuals the physician has never met based solely on answers to a set of questions, as is common in Internet or toll-free telephone prescribing, is inappropriate and unprofessional.
Article concerning Internet Prescribing from Board Newsletter, Vol. 21, Number 3:
Internet Prescribing by Jorge A. Alsip, MD, Chairman
The rapid advance in information technology offers significant opportunities to enhance the delivery of healthcare, but it has also given rise to a cottage industry of rogue Internet websites making a market in the illegal sale of controlled substances and other dangerous drugs. Many Alabama physicians have been contacted with offers to act as ``consultants'' to consumers wishing to purchase medications through these websites. The process typically involves the review of an online patient questionnaire by the physician, after which the physician determines whether or not to prescribe the requested medication. A portion of the fees consumers are charged by these websites is a consultation fee paid to the physician for each prescription he or she authorizes.
Since first studying the issue of Internet prescribing in April 2000 it has been the position of the Board that prescribing drugs to individuals the physician has never met based solely on answers to a set of questions, as is common in Internet or tollfree telephone prescribing, is inappropriate and unprofessional. Whether the setting is the physician's office, the hospital or a telephone or Internet encounter, a proper physician-patient relationship requires:
* Performing an appropriate patient history and physical examination, * Performing any indicated diagnostic and laboratory testing in order to establish a diagnosis and the need for the medication to be prescribed, * Making a good faith effort to verify the identity of the patient requesting medications, * Discussing with the patient the results of their evaluation, the diagnosis, the risks and benefits of various treatment options, and the recommended course of treatment, and * Providing follow-up evaluation and insuring availability of the physician or another appropriate healthcare provider for any complications that might arise.
There are certain circumstances under which prescribing for a patient whom the physician has not personally examined may be suitable. These may include, but not be limited to:
* Admission orders for a patient newly admitted to a health care facility, * Prescribing for a patient of another physician for whom the prescriber is taking call, or * Continuing medication on a shortterm basis for a new patient prior to the patient's first appointment.
Established patients may not require a new history and physical examination for each new prescription , and many physicians are utilizing e-mail communication for established patients requesting refills, appointments or other non-urgent information. This can be an appropriate use of information technology if proper privacy safeguards are in place and policies are established by the physician's practice to ensure the timeliness of responses to patient email.
The Board, in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federation of State Medical Boards, actively investigates suspected rogue websites operating within the state. Several Alabama physicians have lost their medical licenses as a result of unethical and illegal Internet prescribing and also face federal drug trafficking charges, which could result in fines and imprisonment. The Board supports the appropriate use of technology to improve healthcare delivery, but physicians are cautioned not to become involved with Internet prescribing that fails to comply with state and federal prescribing rules and regulations.
Posted by pineapple (Member # 11904) on :
This is very interesting to read what many state boards consider unethical and unprofessional conduct in regards to electronic communications and prescribing.
Please find out the law in your state. I hope all LLMD's are seriously looking at their prescribing techniques and chart documentation in a new light now. These allegations are serious and we do not need to lose ANY lyme docs.
Model Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Internet in Medical Practice (Federation of State Medical Boards of the U.S. ) http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/2002_grpol_Use_of_Internet.pdf Posted by Beverly (Member # 1271) on :
I just want to say a big THANK YOU to all of you who went to Dr. Jone's hearing! I wish I could have been there. It makes me so angry what they are putting him through!
Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
pineapple,
would you please edit your above post, and break up those long SOLID BLOCK text paragraphs into many smaller ones for us neuro-lymies? to edit, click paper/pencil icon to right of your nickname opening up body text. BIG THANKS!
from what i could read at the beginning, looks like this MIGHT be something for dr. jones' lawyers to use on precedent setting? right? i couldn't read enough to get the jest of things.
we all want to help dr. jones/lawyers more, and have a thorough understanding on what we can do to help him. Posted by pineapple (Member # 11904) on :
Could someone please check this CT legislation out?
2007 HB 6838 - Requires a provider to have in person contact with a patient and obtain verbal and written informed consent from the patient prior to the delivery of health care services to the patient through telemedicine for the first time. FAILED (CT Gen. Stat. 20-9)
Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
melissa, thanks for starting the thread; dr. jones//all attendees have been on my mind all day long.
thanks to whoever posted the NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON OUTCOME! that told us a lot in a few short words..
tracy's giving us excetional hard work on detailed notes from today's hearings.
tracy i hope YOU TAKE TIME TO SLEEP WELL and rejuvenate your aching body!
folks will keep adding their feedback in the 3 threads started on dr. jones. what one doesn't think of, another one does!!
good job everyone for your feedback.
As stated above, for those who have NOT donated to Dr. Jones legal fund, please do so in WHATEVER AMOUNT you are able to that isn't detrimental to your budget.
we have so many newbies; would be great if each could at least donate $5 - $10 since dr. j said his expenses have been running $1,000 per DAY!!
thank you all for your consideration! Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
i've deleted what i wrote here last night, an edited synopsis of the crux of what is going is over in Tracy's post on the board's decision.
dilly
[ 19. December 2007, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: sometimesdilly ]
Posted by Robin123 (Member # 9197) on :
Pineapple, very interesting about the Alabama medical board having a rule that would allow what Dr Jones did -- ie, the temporary continuance of a med until seen.
So I'm curious now -- I would imagine that the CT medical board does not have such an allowance in its rules, but has anyone here ever read through them carefully?
And I'm with Betty on this one. Maybe all 50 states' medical board rules could be examined to see what the states' collective positions are on the issue of doctors prescribing before they see a patient.
And with respect to what Dilly said here, were there any positive tests or not? It might be easier to get them here since it is well known that people with these diseases don't always test positive. And, Nevada has Lyme disease.
Posted by pineapple (Member # 11904) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin123: Pineapple, very interesting about the Alabama medical board having a rule that would allow what Dr Jones did -- ie, the temporary continuance of a med until seen.
So I'm curious now -- I would imagine that the CT medical board does not have such an allowance in its rules, but has anyone here ever read through them carefully?
And I'm with Betty on this one. Maybe all 50 states' medical board rules could be examined to see what the states' collective positions are on the issue of doctors prescribing before they see a patient.
Yes, that is my point of posting. Some states have laws that address this, others do not. Definition of telemedicine varies. Some states have PENDING legislature that we all need to be watching since many of us have doctors across state lines. Some states say a doctor must have a license in that other state if they are treating patients across borders. For example, if I were a doctor in State ABC and treated a patient in State XYZ, I would have to be licensed in both ABC and XYZ! I looked into this long ago when I first heard the allegations against Dr. J and assumed that his attorneys would have checked into telemedicine and across state border laws. There are many Medical Boards that have discussed prescribing prior to doing a physical exam on a patient. See the links i posted previously.
Posted by sometimesdilly (Member # 9982) on :
Pineapple-
prescribing over the phone is NOT the substantive charge against Jones.
dilly
Posted by pineapple (Member # 11904) on :
quote:Originally posted by sometimesdilly: Pineapple-
prescribing over the phone is NOT the substantive charge against Jones.
dilly
I understand that fundamentally this is about the treatment of and existence of chronic lyme disease.
"The Connecticut Medical Examining Board voted unanimously to impose the sanctions after concluding that Dr. Charles Ray Jones violated care standards by diagnosing Lyme disease in a boy and his sister and prescribing antibiotics based on a phone conversation with their mother, months before he examined them in May 2004."
and....
"Board members further concluded that Jones was wrong to prescribe antibiotics for nearly a year without repeat exams and without any arrangement with another doctor, because the children lived in Nevada, to monitor for any side effects of long-term antibiotic therapy."
In my humble opinion, without Dr. Jones prescribing over the phone prior to his physical assesment, there wouldn't be a case.
Posted by AliG (Member # 9734) on :
I can't seem to locate anything stating that the Rx prior to visit is grounds for restriction. Does chart review constitute restriction? I guess not., it's just monitoring.
I also can't find anything stating that he can't Rx prior to 1st visit. I also can't find anything stating that he must follow "guidelines" AND I can't find anything that says inaccurate tests must be relied upon for diagnoses.
![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[hi]](graemlins/hi.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[group hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)