...you were a victim of an very easy and deliberate scam to get your money!
IHRT....IT IS AGAINST THE LAW to use the Internet to offer goods not produced on!!!
IHRT understands that a number of patients to "Endogyn, Emma Klinic" went there based on "words and accolades" of others via the internet expressing their "opinions" of Daniels "congeniality "& "fast email response to patients as " compassionate" responses by him," and by information that "appeared" to be statistics of adhesiolysis procedures done there, and that some surgeries were scheduled without actually checking into Daniels "credentials" or actually securing any validations of the "statistics" being presented by some of his "groupies."
Common sense tells us that we should have checked this stuff out before taking others words on it...and that if it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is, but IHRT wants to remind you that those afflicted with chronic, disabling, painful and seemingly hopeless illness's, are easy prey to those who elect to take advantage of them for money! It is with this in mind, that we encourage you to file a complaint against Endogyn, Emma Clinic, as it is the opinion of IHRT that there was no way to really protect yourself from the indignities rendered to you when seeking information regarding an adhesiolysis, scar revision, or any other type of surgery there...
you were a victim of an very easy and deliberate scam to get your money!
What makes IHRT any different then Endogyn when it comes to what we are saying about adhesiolysis at Endogyn, Emma Klinik & Daniel Kruschinski..well, for the most part, what IHRT is doing is simply responding to the words of Daniel, himself, and those who post for him. IHRT offers there opinion on issues already posted by Daniel, IHRT asks questions of Daniel and others representing Endogyn, Emma Klinic, and IHRT posts what has already been posted by Daniel and others at Endogyn, Emma Klinic, and we do this as it is absolutely imperative that the message of what REALLY exists at Endogyn, Emma Klinic, gets out to all who are afflicted with ARD and vulnerable to empty promises and a future of hell.Take a look at how easy it is for someone to only show only a small part of the studies dealing with this issue, and this study did not focus on "DeNovo" adhesions (new adhesions) caused by the lapororotmy incision, or Abdolift "Das Hook" entry port, if you will!
Here's Daniels take on this report....
Laparoscopic surgery does NOT reduce adhesions !!!
http://www.endogynserver.com/cgi-bin/210/cutecast.pl?session=ICUsWfLyNECbm18kPm9cl0rIHF&forum=2&thread=377
Posted Wednesday, October 8, 2003 @ 12:38 PM The following article shows that laparoscopic surgery has the same amount of readmissions for adhesion, regardless if the previous surgery was laparoscopic or open... A very interesting article and I know from over 3000 gasless-laparoscopies I had only one admission because of adhesions. I believe that a alaparoscopy with carbon dioxide with a duration of more than 30 minutes might have plenty of side effects, that are proven in experimental studies to be deleterious to the peritoneal cells. Due to the fact that I'm the only one with such huge amount of gasless surgeries, it would be interesting to have a study gasless contra carbon dioxide laparoscopy regarding adhesion formation and I would like to find a gas laparoscopic surgeon that would contribute to such a study... --------------------Daniel Kruschinski, MD) EndoGyn.com, Adhesions.de, Hysterectomy.de, Fibroids.de, Endometriosis.de, gasless-laparoscopy.com
Ihrt offers another aspect of:
Laporoscopy vs LaporotomyFertil Steril. 1991 Oct;56(4):792.
Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second-look procedures.
Operative Laparoscopy Study Group.[No authors listed]
To assess the issue of the frequency and severity of adhesion reformation and de novo adhesion formation after operative laparoscopy, this multicenter collaborative report of early second-look procedures after operative laparoscopy was initiated. Sixty-eight subjects underwent operative laparoscopic procedures including adhesiolysis, followed by a second operative procedure within 90 days. The total mean adhesion score decreased from 11.4 +/- 0.7 at the initial operative procedure to 5.5 +/- 0.4 at the second-look procedure, a decrease of 52%. At the time of the second-look procedure, 66 of 68 women (97.1%) had pelvic adhesions. Adhesion reformation occurred in 66 of 68 women and at 230 of 351 sites (66%) at which adhesions were lysed. Despite this high incidence of adhesion reformation, de novo adhesion formation after operative laparoscopy occurred in only 8 of 68 women (12%) and at 11 of 47 available sites in these 8 women. We conclude that adhesion reformation is a frequent occurrence after operative laparoscopy; however de novo adhesion formation appears to occur much less frequently.
More:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1826277&dopt=AbstractPMID : 1826277
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] +++++++++++++
IHRT....
Remember, there are always two side to each story, just like you see here. IHRT invites Daniel to come on into IHRT and clarify, denounce, or agree with anything we have stated about Endogyn, Emma Klinic, or about Daniel himself witn the pages of IHRT!
3/20/06
IHRT contacts the: FBI & FTC
IHRT....IT IS AGAINST THE LAW to use the Internet to offer goods not produced on!!!
IHRT understands that a number of patients to "Endogyn, Emma Klinic" went there based on "words and accolades" of others via the internet expressing their "opinions" of Daniels "congeniality "& "fast email response to patients as " compassionate" responses by him," and by information that "appeared" to be statistics of adhesiolysis procedures done there, and that some surgeries were scheduled without actually checking into Daniels "credentials" or actually securing any validations of the "statistics" being presented by some of his "groupies."
Common sense tells us that we should have checked this stuff out before taking others words on it...and that if it sounds to good to be true, then it probably is, but IHRT wants to remind you that those afflicted with chronic, disabling, painful and seemingly hopeless illness's, are easy prey to those who elect to take advantage of them for money!
It is with this in mind, that we encourage you to file a complaint against Endogyn, Emma Clinic, as it is the opinion of IHRT that there was no way to really protect yourself from the indignities rendered to you when seeking information regarding an adhesiolysis, scar revision, or any other type of surgery there...
you were a victim of an very easy and deliberate scam to get your money!
What makes IHRT any different then Endogyn when it comes to what we are saying about adhesiolysis at Endogyn, Emma Klinik & Daniel Kruschinski..well, for the most part, what IHRT is doing is simply responding to the words of Daniel, himself, and those who post for him. IHRT offers there opinion on issues already posted by Daniel, IHRT asks questions of Daniel and others representing Endogyn, Emma Klinic, and IHRT posts what has already been posted by Daniel and others at Endogyn, Emma Klinic, and we do this as it is absolutely imperative that the message of what REALLY exists at Endogyn, Emma Klinic, gets out to all who are afflicted with ARD and vulnerable to empty promises and a future of hell!It is words like this from Daniels mouth that entices desperate ARD sufferers to his operating room..and he miss-represented the article he focused on in his attempts to discredit laporoscopic surgery, which is what HE does, isn't it???!
(This article did not include adhesions caused by the laporototomy incision it self, but rather it focused on the surgical procedure within the peritoneal cavity
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-07/aps-lsw070203.php
Laparoscopic surgery does NOT reduce adhesions !!!
http://www.endogynserver.com/cgi-bin/210/cutecast.pl?session=ICUsWfLyNECbm18kPm9cl0rIHF&forum=2&thread=377
Posted Wednesday, October 8, 2003 @ 12:38 PM The following article shows that laparoscopic surgery has the same amount of readmissions for adhesion, regardless if the previous surgery was laparoscopic or open... A very interesting article and I know from over 3000 gasless-laparoscopies I had only one admission because of adhesions. I believe that a alaparoscopy with carbon dioxide with a duration of more than 30 minutes might have plenty of side effects, that are proven in experimental studies to be deleterious to the peritoneal cells. Due to the fact that I'm the only one with such huge amount of gasless surgeries, it would be interesting to have a study gasless contra carbon dioxide laparoscopy regarding adhesion formation and I would like to find a gas laparoscopic surgeon that would contribute to such a study... --------------------Daniel Kruschinski, MD) EndoGyn.com, Adhesions.de, Hysterectomy.de, Fibroids.de, Endometriosis.de, gasless-laparoscopy.com **********************
Fertil Steril. 1991 Oct;56(4):792.
Postoperative adhesion development after operative laparoscopy: evaluation at early second-look procedures. Operative Laparoscopy Study Group.[No authors listed]
To assess the issue of the frequency and severity of adhesion reformation and de novo adhesion formation after operative laparoscopy, this multicenter collaborative report of early second-look procedures after operative laparoscopy was initiated. Sixty-eight subjects underwent operative laparoscopic procedures including adhesiolysis, followed by a second operative procedure within 90 days. The total mean adhesion score decreased from 11.4 +/- 0.7 at the initial operative procedure to 5.5 +/- 0.4 at the second-look procedure, a decrease of 52%. At the time of the second-look procedure, 66 of 68 women (97.1%) had pelvic adhesions. Adhesion reformation occurred in 66 of 68 women and at 230 of 351 sites (66%) at which adhesions were lysed. Despite this high incidence of adhesion reformation, de novo adhesion formation after operative laparoscopy occurred in only 8 of 68 women (12%) and at 11 of 47 available sites in these 8 women. We conclude that adhesion reformation is a frequent occurrence after operative laparoscopy; however de novo adhesion formation appears to occur much less frequently.
MORE:
PMID: 1826277 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1826277&dopt=Abstract
Federal Bureau of Investigation"
*** IHRT contacted the FBI, where they encourage any prior patients to Endogyn, Emma Klinic, to go to this web site and fill out a formal complaint against Daniel, if they feel that Daniel "extracted" money from them under "false" promises and pretenses!
www.IC3.Gov
State that other complaints have been submitted against Endogyn, Emma Klinic, and remember, the more complaints filed, the better your case to re-cup money extracted from you by Daniel!"
Federal Trade Commission"
***IHRT contacted the "Federal Trade Commission" where they encourage any prior patients to Endogyn, Emma Klinic, to CALL the number listed here to file a formal complaint against Daniel, if they feel that Daniel "extracted" money from them under "false" promises and pretenses!
Internet filing of an FTC complaint against Endogyn, Emma Klinic, please visit the following web site
FTC Complaint
www.FTC.Gov
To personally phone in an FTC complaint against Endogyn, Emma Klinic, please use the following phone numbers and the following lead #'s to speak to an agent:
FTC Consumer complaints: 1-877-382-4357 Press #4 Press #5 Press tag # 0
State that other complaints have been submitted against Endogyn, Emma Klinic, and remember, the more complaints filed, the better your case to re-cup money extracted from you by Daniel!
IHRT is offering patients from Endogyn, Emma Klinic the opportunity to recoup moneys spent there particularly if a prior patient went to Enodgyn, Emma Klinic and does not think that they received services promised to them!
Such as:
A.) Being told that Kruschinski has 100% results from gasless adhesiolysis & Spraygel combination
B.) Being told that ARD patients will NOT have to return for "multiple" surgeries after an adhesiolysis at Endogyn, Emma Klinic
C.) Being told that a surgery with CO2 causes damage to the peritoneum, verses a gasless surgery. (No scientific validation of claims)
D.) Offering surgery at Endogyn with Harry Reich, of the USA, only to find that Dr. Reich has only performed 4 surgeries at Endogyn,Emma Klinic in four years!
E.) Stating that Kruschinski has the best statistics of results for non-reforming adhesions (No validation)
F.) Promises that patients will be able to eat "everything" listed in the Endogyn,Emma Klinic web site after an adhesiolysis with Kruschinski
G.) Do you feel that you have been intimidated by Daniel or "any of his prior patients" to secure a surgery at Endogyn, Emma Klinic, being that you were desperate and vulnerable.Do you feel that you were subject to any of the following when you secured a surgery at Endogyn, Emma Klinik, or by Daniel doing any of the following:
1.) urging you send money ASAP, or lose your surgery date
2.) securing a surgery date for you within hours of your initial contact with him
3.) without first securing your operatives to acclimate him to your case
4.) sharing statistics with you that appeared to be "to good to be true."
5.) telling you that only he could offer you an adhesiolysis that would give you the best chance of getting well from your adhesions symptoms
6.) telling you that he was a "plastic" surgeon and offered you an abdominal scar revision
7.) responding to you after you sent an email to any of the other surgeons listed in Endogyn, Emma Klinic
8.) Offers of a "discount" for your surgery at Endogyn, Emma Klinic be it a return surgery or the initial surgery
If anyone one who wants to file a report with the "FBI and Federal Trade Commission," but are not sure if you quality, please ask your question through IHRT response to this post, using "Anonymous," and we will offer our advice and/or direct you to where you can secure your answers.
A Prescription for Caution: Searching the Internet for Medical Information http://www.isms.org/patient/intermed.html
Recent studies have estimated that nearly 40 percent of the people who use the Internet are seeking medical information. With consumers wanting to become more informed and in control of their health care, this should come as little surprise. Research done in minutes on the Internet replaces days of searching volumes of medical journals. Not only are consumers turning to the Internet for information on illnesses and an array of medical advice, but many look to chat sessions and on-line support groups to provide emotional support. It would seem that this technology has the potential to cure all that ails the medical information seeker, but it is not quite that cut-and-dried. Those surfing the Web should do so with a critical eye. The problem with searching the World Wide Web is not finding too little information, but finding accurate and complete information. It can be hard to separate fact from fiction, medical opinion from sound medical knowledge.
Navigating the Frontier: Where the Frauds Are
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/cyberfraud.htm
The Internet allows individuals or companies to communicate with a large audience without spending a lot of time, effort, or money. Anyone can reach tens of thousands of people by building an Internet web site, posting a message on an online bulletin board, entering a discussion in a live "chat" room, or sending mass e-mails. It's easy for fraudsters to make their messages look real and credible. But it's nearly impossible for investors to tell the difference between fact and fiction
Adhesion Related Disorder
No comments:
Post a Comment