Goodness someone keeps on trying but to no avail.
LOL!
Here we see another Fail at legitimacy by the Endogyn Dancers....
To make your contact convenient, please use our international phone numbers for the countries, where most of our patients come from.
+1 (360) 566 2987
+44 20 3286 0247
Please only call at MET and in normal office hours 8:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m. (except holiday times)
Records Found! Search Results for (360)-566-2987
Phone Number
Type
Owner Info
Additional Info
(360)-566-2987
VANCOUVER, WA
LANDLINE
Name:
Available
Address:
Available
Background Report:
Available
Previous Locations:
1 Address in VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON
-->
Carrier:
Available
Area:
VANCOUVER
State:
WASHINGTON
Search Date:
11/30/2008
Search Time:
10:33
Fitzgeral Barbara
http://www.pagewash.com/nph-index.cgi/010110A/znvygb:pneaviny@sbbqobbgu.arg
+1 (503) &"(-"=)=
Cornelius, Oregon
Adhesiolysis via gasless Lift-Laparoscopy with SprayGel AdhesionsDate: 21.02.2007
???????
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The fate of Stacey Mullens
Wow, I think Kruschinski is the biggest fan and emulater of these crooks...
Kru wasnt half as smart as they are and he's as lasy as a drunken "dormir comme un loir" can be LOL
Hey Kru...tomorrow is another day.
To any fans of Kruschinski like Karen and Helen and Dandy Sandy...well you can lead a retarted horse to water but.....
Stanford Surgeon's Procedures Raise Ethical and Legal Red Flags
Supporters say Camran Nezhat is a miracle worker -- critics call his operations bizarre and barbaric
William Carlsen, Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writers
With a white surgical mask dangling rakishly below his chin, Dr. Camran Nezhat looks every bit the part in his promotional video: medical pioneer, gifted surgeon, millionaire inventor of operating room tools. The Stanford clinical professor, recruited from his lucrative Atlanta practice, is a rainmaker for the university's medical center and obstetrics and gynecology department. Since he arrived at Stanford in 1993, he has brought patients, prestige, and scores of surgeons to study at the Stanford Endoscopy Center, which he directs.
But along with his brother gynecologists, Drs. Farr and Ceana Nezhat, he has also brought trouble to this elite enclave of high-tech medicine.
Trailing him to Stanford are allegations of reckless and unethical medical conduct. Critics accuse the Nezhats of performing a bizarre and dangerous medical experiment on the rectums of vulnerable female patients and of falsifying data reported in medical journal articles.
In the past five years, 20 doctors and surgeons across the country have signed statements of serious concern about the Nezhats' surgeries and published research and have called for an investigation.
''In my experience in the fields of law and medicine, I can't imagine a group of men who have crossed the line in more ways in the field of bioethics than the Nezhats,'' said Andrea Scott, a Los Angeles attorney and bioethicist.
And if the allegations against the Nezhats are true, soon top Stanford administrators may face troubling questions about the extent to which they heeded repeated warnings about the Nezhats and investigated the charges against them.
While the American College of Gynecology's code of ethics requires members to report questionable medical practices, a top Stanford official threatened at least one doctor with a lawsuit if he continued to criticize the Nezhats.
''There are serious, serious problems going on at Stanford,'' said Dr. Tom Margolis, a former Stanford Medical School professor who has signed a sworn affidavit charging the Nezhats with misconduct. ''Certain people are covering this up because there is a hell of a lot of money going to Stanford because of the Nezhats.''
The Nezhat brothers have declined to be interviewed. Through their Atlanta attorneys, they deny any wrongdoing and question the motives of their accusers, citing professional rivalry and economic competition. Stanford officials say they have thoroughly investigated and rejected allegations of scientific fraud.
Camran Nezhat is embraced by a large cadre of supporters, including Stanford colleagues and patients, who admire him personally and are awestruck by his abilities in the operating room.
''People like (Nezhat) are a rarity,'' said Salinas gynecologist Dr. Rene Charles. ''I'd compare him to Michelangelo, in terms of his surgical skills.''
In a letter of support sent to The Chronicle, 39 Stanford nurses and other health-care staff members describe Nezhat as a worker of ''miracles'' who takes cases ''others have given up on.''
Yet doubts about the Nezhats date back well into the 1980s, when Camran emerged in Georgia as a pioneer in the nascent art of laparoscopic surgery.
And they have been rekindled by recent developments in an astounding malpractice case that has been languishing in Atlanta courts for six years.
That case could determine once and for all whether the Nezhats are the pioneering surgeons they claim to be or whether they catapulted their careers to Stanford on the basis of a dangerous and grotesque medical fraud.
BUILDING A PRACTICE, 1988
Camran Nezhat and his brothers grew up in prerevolutionary Iran, where each attended medical school. Camran emigrated to the United States in 1974 and completed his obstetrics and gynecology residency at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
In 1978, he received a two-year reproductive endocrinology fellowship at Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. Farr and Ceana followed their older brother to Augusta and eventually joined Camran's growing practice in Atlanta.
During the 1980s, while practicing at Atlanta's Northside Hospital, the Nezhats began to develop a reputation for their skills in laparoscopy, a type of surgery in which laser scalpels, miniature cameras and long-stemmed instruments are worked inside the body through dime-sized incisions.
They published scores of articles in medical journals, claiming a remarkable series of ''surgical firsts.'' They also developed a number of ingenious instruments for the laparoscopic operating room. A company they co-founded, American Hydro-Surgical Instruments Inc., eventually sold for $40 million.
Their specialty was treating endometriosis, a painful ailment afflicting an estimated 5 million American women. It is caused when cells that make up the lining of the uterus migrate and bind to other parts of the abdominal cavity, swelling with the monthly menstrual cycle, sometimes causing debilitating pain. The condition is often linked to infertility.
Northside Hospital began promoting the Nezhats, hiring a public relations firm to spread the word about the doctors and their accomplishments. Camran was featured in Newsweek and the Chicago Tribune, and on MSNBC, CNN, ABC's ''20/20'' and elsewhere.
The brothers garnered a reputation as some of the world's foremost innovators of laparoscopic surgery, attracting cash-paying patients from around the globe.
THE MULLEN CASE, 1991
Suffering from endometriosis, 28-year-old Stacey Mullen flew from Southern California to Atlanta's Northside Hospital in 1988 to be operated on by Camran Nezhat. The surgery was quick, the pain was gone, and Mullen was elated as she walked out of the hospital the next day.
''I was ready to name my firstborn after Camran Nezhat,'' she said.
But, as often happens, the endometriosis and the pain returned. And in December 1991, Mullen flew back to Atlanta for what she thought would be another ''quick little surgery.''
The surgery, however, was neither little nor quick.
Camran and his brother Farr, with colorectal surgeon Dr. Earl Pennington assisting, spent hours using laparoscopic techniques to cut Mullen's colon and rectum free of nerves, blood vessels and connecting tissue. Her ''mobilized'' rectum was pulled inside out through her anus, and suspected endometrial tissue was removed. Her patched-up rectum was then pushed back inside.
Then the complications began.
Hours after surgery, part of her colon dropped out of her body as she sat on the toilet. For months, she suffered from extreme constipation. Sometimes she burped up her own feces.
Mullen never regained normal use of her bowel. Eventually, she received a colostomy and must insert a tube into an opening in her side to go the bathroom.
In December 1993, after nearly two years of continuing pain, she filed a malpractice suit against the Nezhats. ''Those bastards ruined my life,'' she said.
THREE ARTICLES, 1993
Shortly after taking Mullen's case, attorney James Neal discovered two medical journal articles that the Nezhats and Pennington had published after Mullen's operation.
The first appeared in Fertility & Sterility in May 1992, describing a single case using the new pull-through procedure for treating rectal endometriosis. ''As with all new procedures,'' the article said, ''there are no data to establish its safety.''
The second was published in the September 1992 issue of Surgical Laparoscopy & Endoscopy. It detailed a series of 16 rectal surgeries, similar to Mullen's, performed in late 1991 and early 1992 - the period during which her surgery took place.
Yet Mullen's case - and her complications - were not mentioned.
The article listed only a single complication: The doctors had to perform traditional open abdominal surgery in order to complete the suturing of one patient's bowel.
''This procedure has been performed safely in this initial series,'' the Nezhats wrote, and they claimed fewer problems than would be expected with regular open abdominal surgery.
The Nezhats aggressively publicized the ''success'' of the new procedure. It was touted by Ethicon Inc., the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that made the instruments the Nezhats had used. ''For the estimated 185,000 women who suffer from endometriosis of the rectum, this new advance provides them with relief from the digestive symptoms,'' the company said.
At a 1991 American Fertility Society meeting in Orlando, and a 1992 convention of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Las Vegas, Ethicon promoted their instruments and the Nezhats, even including a video of the surgery.
But skepticism about the Nezhats and their procedure was beginning to grow. The lack of complications did not make sense for such radical bowel surgery, doctors said. Some surgeons who viewed the promotional video were puzzled: They could not see evidence of endometriosis.
Stories began circulating in the surgical community around Atlanta's Northside Hospital. The medical journal articles said the average operating time for the surgeries was three hours, but during the time of the study, the Nezhat operating room had been burning lights deep into the Georgia night.
Then Neal discovered a third journal publication, written by one of Nezhat's Atlanta colleagues and published more than a year after Mullen's operation.
The article in Surgical Endoscopy described a ''pilot'' study testing the same procedure on pigs in order to assess its safety on humans.
''Some damage to the sphincter might occur,'' the authors wrote, but the long-term effects were unknown: The pigs were ''sacrificed'' before they awoke from anesthesia.
Neal and Mullen were stunned: Not only had the Nezhats omitted Mullen's case from their series - and in doing so did not report her complications - they apparently had tried out the new procedure on her and other women before it was tested on pigs.
Nezhat attorney David Walbert said the pig study ''had nothing whatever to do with the safety and efficacy'' of the human surgery described in the medical journals. The purpose of the pig experiment, he said, was to determine whether the procedure was suitable for treating cancer.
'BARBARIC,' 1993
When Neal began contacting medical experts about Mullen's surgery, many sent him letters and affidavits calling the operation radical and experimental; they characterized it as ''bizarre'' and ''barbaric.'' It resembled a cancer surgery that had been discredited years before, after complication rates as high as 50 percent were reported.
The surgery had not been vetted before a Northside Hospital Institutional Review Board, the usual requirement for an experimental procedure.
''Normally you go before an IRB, come up with scientific background, present a plan, torturous documentation, nine pages of informed consent, and you cannot charge for it,'' said Ohio general surgeon Dr. Francis Barnes.
Mullen and her insurance company, however, were billed $9,900 for the rectal surgery. She eventually ran up more than $1 million in additional medical expenses as a result of the operation, according to Neal.
Neal also learned that Mullen - and possibly four other women whose cases were included in the Nezhats' articles - had signed an unusual document, recently created by the Georgia legislature. It was called a ''waiver of informed consent,'' and it set aside a patient's right to detailed information about a surgery.
''This is incomprehensibly unethical,'' said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics and one of the nation's foremost medical ethicists. ''You can no more sign away your right to informed consent than you can voluntarily sell yourself to slavery.''
''I never knew I was signing such a document,'' Mullen said. ''I thought it was a regular consent form.''
Yet the most disturbing discovery was made in Mullen's own medical records. In his operative notes, Camran Nezhat wrote: ''There was evidence of severe endometriosis of the rectum.''
But Mullen's pathology lab report disclosed that there had been no endometriosis on the wall of her rectum at all - just a few cells in the adjoining fat. The surgery had not been necessary in the first place.
16 MEDICAL RECORDS
Neal went to court and demanded to see the medical records of the 16 other patients the Nezhats had operated on in Georgia, convinced they would show complications, more waivers of informed consent, and surgical data different from what was reported in the Nezhat articles.
But the Nezhat legal team refused to turn them over, citing privacy concerns of other patients - at least 10 of whom signed affidavits opposing any release.
Mullen was given the waiver form by mistake, they explained, and she was told about the procedure's risks. Medical experts for the Nezhats also insist that the rectal surgery was not experimental, so no Institutional Review Board process was required.
''In my opinion, the surgery performed on Mary (Stacey) Mullen was a necessary procedure and would not require any special consent form for experimental surgery,'' said Dr. Robert R. Franklin, a clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Houston's Baylor College of Medicine.
The Nezhat lawyers also argue that Mullen's rectal surgery did not cause her bowel problems. ''She reported constipation before the procedure,'' said Walbert.
THE FIRST WARNING, 1993
In the early 1990s, Stanford Medical School's department of obstetrics and gynecology was in trouble. Despite the school's lofty reputation, the department was not fully accredited.
The Chicago-based Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education demanded more ''surgical volume'' before it would upgrade the program's ''provisional'' status.
Yet when Dr. Nick Spirtos heard that Stanford was recruiting the Nezhats, he could not believe it.
Spirtos is a Palo Alto gynecological oncologist with an august reputation of his own. Like the Nezhats, he is a clinical professor, which means he serves on the school's voluntary teaching faculty with surgical privileges at the medical center. He also holds the elected post of deputy chief of the obstetrics and gynecology department.
During the past nine years, he has become a leading critic of the Nezhats and their Stanford defenders.
''I think everything they've written is fraudulent,'' said Spirtos, whose office is just one floor below the Nezhats' in an upscale medical office building near Stanford. ''I don't think they should be allowed to practice medicine.''
Spirtos had traveled with colleagues to a gynecology convention in Florida to see the 1991 presentation by Camran and Farr Nezhat sponsored by Ethicon. The program included videos of two new Nezhat operations, one of them showing the rectal procedure that would be performed two months later on Mullen.
''We couldn't believe what we saw,'' Spirtos said, noting that there was no evidence of endometriosis. ''The surgeries didn't make any sense.''
But before they could quiz the Nezhats about their presentation, Spirtos recalled, the Nezhats left the podium, refusing to answer questions.
Two years later, after studying their journal articles, he warned university administrators not to bring them to Stanford. Spirtos argued that the Nezhats' published data were simply too good to be true.
But Spirtos said his advice was ignored.
''It was a perfect marriage,'' he said. ''The Nezhats had all the dough in the world but no title. And Stanford needed desperately to have surgical volume to legitimize their (obstetrics and gynecology) department.''
NEW TROUBLE, 1993
Within two years of the Nezhats' arrival in Palo Alto, Camran became director of the new Stanford Endoscopy Center for Training and Technology. And Ethicon, which had retained Nezhat as a surgical investigator, agreed to provide a $125,000 annual grant to the center.
Quickly, the Nezhats began pairing up with surgeons outside their immediate discipline - including specialists in cancer, heart and brain surgery - with the goal of expanding the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques.
The practice troubled Spirtos, and when he learned that Camran Nezhat intended to operate on a patient of one of Spirtos' medical partners, he wrote in protest to Dr. Mary Lake Polan, the chief of the obstetrics and gynecology department.
The patient was a 74-year-old woman who had undergone extensive surgery for the removal of pelvic cancer, and Spirtos told Polan that the patient's cancer had spread so extensively that laparoscopic surgery would be useless.
''Certainly, (Nezhat) has no experience in this area (treating cancer), and it seems to me serious patient care issues are being placed on the back burner in your headlong rush to promote the Nezhats,'' he said in a 1993 letter to Polan.
Despite Spirtos' protests, Nezhat and Stanford cancer surgeon Dr. Nelson Teng went ahead with the operation.
The patient was on the operating table for seven hours and was hospitalized for seven days afterward. Her bladder and bowel were punctured during the operation, Spirtos said, and the doctors could not remove all the cancer. In his report to the university's ''quality assurance'' review committee, Spirtos charged that Nezhat, credentialed as a gynecologist, was performing cancer surgeries, a specialty that requires years of extra formal training. He also laid out four other Nezhat cancer cases for the quality assurance review committee.
''No other hospital would allow a gynecologist to perform (cancer) surgeries,'' said Spirtos.
But his hope for a quick review of the five cases soon faded. ''Stanford sat on those cases for years,'' he said.
NEZHAT'S AFFIDAVIT, 1994
Meanwhile, Mullen and her attorney continued to press for the release of the files on the 16 other women who had undergone the rectal procedure. And the Nezhats continued to refuse.
In a sworn 1994 affidavit, Camran Nezhat declared it would disrupt his practice for months if he were ordered to produce records demanded by Mullen's legal team.
He described a filing system with 20,000 patients, each listed only alphabetically, with no index, no computer database and no cross-referencing by type of treatment, surgery performed, or journal publication.
''I would . . . have to manually review every single patient record . . . to determine whether the record referenced a patient whose procedure was the subject of a journal article,'' he testified.
The affidavit shocked Nezhat's critics, who say it has cast a pall on the validity of the Nezhats' research ever since.
''I've been doing this kind of research for 25 years. There is a substantial problem if you cannot link patient records to publications,'' said Dr. David Grimes, former chief of obstetrics and gynecology at San Francisco General Hospital, who briefly served as a paid expert to Mullen's legal team.
How, asks Grimes, can the Nezhats publish extensive studies based on old charts and old data involving hundreds of patients over many years if those patients' files are not indexed or cross-referenced?
Grimes was not the first doctor to question the Nezhats' research. Long before they publicized their controversial bowel surgery, competitors and collaborators alike were skeptical of the brothers' claims of surgical firsts and problem-free procedures. In 1987, Dr. Harry Reich, a world-renowned laparoscopic surgeon at New York's Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, agreed to collaborate with Camran Nezhat on a surgical study of 105 tubal pregnancies.
But Reich was bothered by Nezhat's repeated failure to share his data on 40 patients to be included in their article in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine.
''So we had to delete the data from the paper,'' Reich recalled.
The Nezhats' lawyers say Reich never requested any data that were not provided.
In 1990, a Nezhat report in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology also raised eyebrows. The Nezhats stated they had performed 4,000 laparoscopic surgeries without injuring a ureter, the tube connecting the kidney and bladder.
Their claim drew a sarcastic response from three Yale University doctors: ''The authors are to be congratulated. . . . Either these surgeons had other complications, perhaps as serious, or they possess an unbelievably high level of skill and judgment.''
Other articles in which the Nezhats claim to have reviewed thousands of old cases include:
-- A 1995 textbook article describing 214 complications among 6,949 cases in Atlanta and Stanford from 1982 to 1993.
-- A 1996 medical journal report of severe urinary tract endometriosis in 28 women among 2,226 treated for endometriosis from 1989 to 1994.
-- A 1997 study examining 5,300 surgeries dating back to 1988, counting up 11 hernias caused by insertion of the laparoscope.
Atlanta attorney Walbert scoffs at accusations of medical fraud. ''Many, many surgeons'' have conducted research with the Nezhats, he said. ''Those who have any knowledge have never claimed there was anything 'bogus' about any of the reports.''
Dr. Sally Tazuke, a Stanford reproductive endocrinologist who has worked with Camran Nezhat frequently, said his reported complications are low because he is exceptionally good at what he does - even while taking on the riskiest cases. ''If I were a patient, I would sign up with him. I'd send any family member,'' she said.
Skeptics say the stakes are high. Dr. Thomas Lyons, an Atlanta gynecological surgeon who believes the Nezhats have published journal articles with phony data, said medical fraud can lead unsuspecting doctors to hurt their patients.
''This is as dangerous a situation as you can run into in medicine, because people may be making medical decisions based on something that doesn't exist,'' he said.
If someone ever questioned the veracity of his own data, Lyons said, ''The first thing I would do is throw that data right in their face. . . . The best defense in the world is the truth.''
NEAL'S LETTER, 1995
In January 1995, Mullen's attorney, James Neal, wrote to Stanford, alerting the university to the allegations his legal team was making against the Nezhats. As a former hospital counsel himself, he said he thought they would appreciate a copy of the Mullen lawsuit.
''I feel that your institution should have the opportunity to evaluate these matters . . . given your understandable and overriding concern for the patients within your institution,'' Neal wrote.
But Stanford took no action.
Instead, Margaret Eaton, a university lawyer, forwarded the letter to Nezhat's attorney in Atlanta, with a note saying that ''we do not intend to respond to this letter, nor are further communications from Mr. Neal welcome.''
In June 1995 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education approved full accreditation to Stanford.
ALLEGATIONS, 1996
A year later, Neal sent Stanford a thick package of documents, laying out in more detail the charges against the Nezhats and asking Stanford to investigate.
Dr. Richard Popp, Stanford's senior associate dean for academic affairs, said Neal provided a ''massive amount'' of what he called ''disorganized'' information.
Popp finally opened an inquiry into the charge of scientific misconduct. But university officials contend that by that time, some of the allegations, including Neal's claim of medical journal fraud, had been thrown out by the Georgia courts.
Neal, who freely admits that he has become obsessed with exposing the Nezhats, was running up a list of legal setbacks. In his dogged pursuit of the Nezhats, he was building a reputation as a crank.
He was disqualified from the malpractice case by a Georgia judge in 1995 for ''unethical behavior'' and could no longer represent Mullen. After a federal judge last year tossed out his attempt, on behalf of another client charging malpractice, to use racketeering charges against the Nezhats, Neal was charged with contempt of court. The judge also assessed $384,000 in ''sanctions'' against the plaintiff and her remaining attorneys. The sanctions are on appeal.
Neal denies the unethical conduct allegation, and the contempt of court charge was recently dropped. The only thing he is guilty of, he says, is aggressively representing his clients against institutions willing to look the other way.
''These guys are bad doctors, some have even said evil, and they have to be stopped,'' he said.
WITNESS, 1996
Shortly after Dr. Tom Margolis joined Stanford as an assistant professor and chief of pelvic surgery, Farr Nezhat invited the newcomer to watch him perform a complex laparoscopic procedure.
During the operation, Nezhat cut the patient's ureter. Margolis, who had also served as director of urogynecologic/pelvic surgery at Northwestern University Medical School, assumed it was an accident, a known but unwelcome complication of the difficult surgical technique. He stepped in to assist Nezhat in repairing it.
But a short time later Margolis learned that, in a post-operative review session and the operative report, Nezhat described the cut as deliberate. He said he sliced the ureter to remove endometriosis that could have blocked urine flow.
Margolis was outraged. He said that he saw no endometriosis on the ureter and that the pathology report proved it.
''It was clear that Dr. Nezhat was performing an unnecessary procedure,'' he said in a sworn affidavit.
THE POLAN MEETING, 1996
More than two years passed before Stanford's quality assurance committee took up the review of the five cancer cases in which Spirtos had alleged improper surgeries by Camran Nezhat.
Just before the review committee was finally set to meet, Dr. Mary Lake Polan, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology, dropped by Margolis' office. He was one of the physicians reviewing the cases.
''We need to make sure that Nezhat is cleared on all these (cancer) cases,'' she told him, according to his affidavit.
Ultimately Margolis - and the other members of the quality assurance committee - voted in favor of Nezhat on all charges.
Polan said Margolis' allegations are false.
''I adamantly deny the statements attributed to me and deny there has been any pressure to exonerate any physician during the quality of care committee process," she declared in a written response to The Chronicle.
Margolis' decision to vote to exonerate Nezhat would haunt him for more than a year, until finally he had to act.
THE SHUER LETTER, 1998
In April 1998, Margolis met with Dr. Lawrence Shuer, chief of staff of the medical center. He told Shuer about the cut ureter incident and the pressure Polan had allegedly exerted on him.
''He (Shuer) acutely and abruptly ended our conversation, and I was excused from his office,'' Margolis said.
More than a year later, when Shuer learned Margolis was still criticizing the Nezhats and Stanford, he sent a written warning:
''Rest assured that Stanford Hospital and Clinics intends to pursue its full legal remedies if these defamatory and libelous statement do not cease,'' Shuer wrote.
Furious, Margolis, who had left Stanford to practice with Spirtos at the Women's Cancer Center in Palo Alto and Los Gatos, wrote back, saying that Shuer's job as chief of staff was ''patient protection not doctor protection.''
''The data which (the Nezhats) have published, including the rectal eversion procedure, is fraudulent, yet their publications are being accepted as standards in the surgical community. Stanford, by not auditing this clinical data, has ignored the concerns of scores of surgeons,'' Margolis wrote.
STANFORD'S DUTY, 2000
Defenders of the Nezhats at Stanford dismiss both Spirtos and Margolis as jealous competitors. But other medical experts say Stanford should have demanded a review of the 16 cases and has shirked its responsibility to verify the Nezhats' research claims.
''Stanford has a duty to review this,'' said Dr. Warren Grundfest, chairman of Biomedical Engineering at UCLA and an expert in new medical technologies. ''Serious allegations have been made by credible people, but Stanford has played like an ostrich with its head in the sand.''
But Stanford officials contend they are not obligated to review the 16 patient records because the rectal surgeries were performed in Georgia before the Nezhats came to the West Coast. Shuer said the procedure in question has never been performed at Stanford.
It was appropriate for the Nezhats to leave Mullen's case out of the medical journal, according to Stanford, because she was ultimately found not to have rectal endometriosis like the other patients.
Stanford reviewers have never asked the Nezhats or Northside Hospital for the records to verify the accuracy of the other 16 cases. ''We have no right to the records and do not want to violate patient privacy,'' said Stanford's lawyer Debra Zumwalt.
The university also never interviewed Mullen or the 20 doctors who have expressed concern over the Nezhats' research.
According to Stanford, the appropriate institutions to investigate the Nezhats are Northside Hospital, the Georgia Medical Board and Mercer University, where the Nezhats were clinical professors at the time of the surgeries. ''Stanford will carefully review the conclusions of those investigations,'' said Popp.
But a spokesman for Mercer, a Macon, Ga., medical school founded in 1986, said the school has no investigation pending.
The Georgia Medical Board's investigation of the Nezhats is continuing. The board will not comment on its status.
Stanford attorney Zumwalt said Margolis' complaint to Shuer regarding the cut ureter incident was never put in writing. Shuer said he asked Margolis for more information, and none was provided, but the case has now been identified and is being investigated by the quality assurance committee.
The university said the Nezhats have been cleared of allegations that they operated outside their specialty. Officials would not comment, however, on any details of the five quality assurance cases because they are confidential.
''One thing I can point out,'' said Zumwalt, ''is that doctors and patients and their families can reasonably disagree as to how aggressive to be in treating terminal diseases.''
GEORGIA COURTROOM, 2000
Mullen has refused to engage in monetary settlement talks with the Nezhats and promises to continue her suit until the records of the 16 other women are made public.
''My life has been changed in a very horrible and profound way by the experiment (that) Camran Nezhat has conducted upon me without my knowledge,'' Mullen said in an affidavit. ''I despair that other women will be injured by well-meaning surgeons who believe Camran Nezhat's article that there were no complications from this new surgery.''
In November, after a battle spanning six years - and six judges - Superior Court Judge Melvin Westmoreland in Atlanta ordered a confidential release of the records to Mullen's lawyers, and in January, the Nezhats and Northside Hospital turned them over.
While the records remain sealed, medical experts hired by Mullen's legal team to review the documents have written Judge Westmoreland expressing their concern about what the records contain, and urging that they be unsealed, in the public interest. ..
William Carlsen can be reached at wcarlsen@sfgate.com. Sabin Russell can be reached at sabin@sfgate.com.
Kru wasnt half as smart as they are and he's as lasy as a drunken "dormir comme un loir" can be LOL
Hey Kru...tomorrow is another day.
To any fans of Kruschinski like Karen and Helen and Dandy Sandy...well you can lead a retarted horse to water but.....
Stanford Surgeon's Procedures Raise Ethical and Legal Red Flags
Supporters say Camran Nezhat is a miracle worker -- critics call his operations bizarre and barbaric
William Carlsen, Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writers
With a white surgical mask dangling rakishly below his chin, Dr. Camran Nezhat looks every bit the part in his promotional video: medical pioneer, gifted surgeon, millionaire inventor of operating room tools. The Stanford clinical professor, recruited from his lucrative Atlanta practice, is a rainmaker for the university's medical center and obstetrics and gynecology department. Since he arrived at Stanford in 1993, he has brought patients, prestige, and scores of surgeons to study at the Stanford Endoscopy Center, which he directs.
But along with his brother gynecologists, Drs. Farr and Ceana Nezhat, he has also brought trouble to this elite enclave of high-tech medicine.
Trailing him to Stanford are allegations of reckless and unethical medical conduct. Critics accuse the Nezhats of performing a bizarre and dangerous medical experiment on the rectums of vulnerable female patients and of falsifying data reported in medical journal articles.
In the past five years, 20 doctors and surgeons across the country have signed statements of serious concern about the Nezhats' surgeries and published research and have called for an investigation.
''In my experience in the fields of law and medicine, I can't imagine a group of men who have crossed the line in more ways in the field of bioethics than the Nezhats,'' said Andrea Scott, a Los Angeles attorney and bioethicist.
And if the allegations against the Nezhats are true, soon top Stanford administrators may face troubling questions about the extent to which they heeded repeated warnings about the Nezhats and investigated the charges against them.
While the American College of Gynecology's code of ethics requires members to report questionable medical practices, a top Stanford official threatened at least one doctor with a lawsuit if he continued to criticize the Nezhats.
''There are serious, serious problems going on at Stanford,'' said Dr. Tom Margolis, a former Stanford Medical School professor who has signed a sworn affidavit charging the Nezhats with misconduct. ''Certain people are covering this up because there is a hell of a lot of money going to Stanford because of the Nezhats.''
The Nezhat brothers have declined to be interviewed. Through their Atlanta attorneys, they deny any wrongdoing and question the motives of their accusers, citing professional rivalry and economic competition. Stanford officials say they have thoroughly investigated and rejected allegations of scientific fraud.
Camran Nezhat is embraced by a large cadre of supporters, including Stanford colleagues and patients, who admire him personally and are awestruck by his abilities in the operating room.
''People like (Nezhat) are a rarity,'' said Salinas gynecologist Dr. Rene Charles. ''I'd compare him to Michelangelo, in terms of his surgical skills.''
In a letter of support sent to The Chronicle, 39 Stanford nurses and other health-care staff members describe Nezhat as a worker of ''miracles'' who takes cases ''others have given up on.''
Yet doubts about the Nezhats date back well into the 1980s, when Camran emerged in Georgia as a pioneer in the nascent art of laparoscopic surgery.
And they have been rekindled by recent developments in an astounding malpractice case that has been languishing in Atlanta courts for six years.
That case could determine once and for all whether the Nezhats are the pioneering surgeons they claim to be or whether they catapulted their careers to Stanford on the basis of a dangerous and grotesque medical fraud.
BUILDING A PRACTICE, 1988
Camran Nezhat and his brothers grew up in prerevolutionary Iran, where each attended medical school. Camran emigrated to the United States in 1974 and completed his obstetrics and gynecology residency at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
In 1978, he received a two-year reproductive endocrinology fellowship at Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. Farr and Ceana followed their older brother to Augusta and eventually joined Camran's growing practice in Atlanta.
During the 1980s, while practicing at Atlanta's Northside Hospital, the Nezhats began to develop a reputation for their skills in laparoscopy, a type of surgery in which laser scalpels, miniature cameras and long-stemmed instruments are worked inside the body through dime-sized incisions.
They published scores of articles in medical journals, claiming a remarkable series of ''surgical firsts.'' They also developed a number of ingenious instruments for the laparoscopic operating room. A company they co-founded, American Hydro-Surgical Instruments Inc., eventually sold for $40 million.
Their specialty was treating endometriosis, a painful ailment afflicting an estimated 5 million American women. It is caused when cells that make up the lining of the uterus migrate and bind to other parts of the abdominal cavity, swelling with the monthly menstrual cycle, sometimes causing debilitating pain. The condition is often linked to infertility.
Northside Hospital began promoting the Nezhats, hiring a public relations firm to spread the word about the doctors and their accomplishments. Camran was featured in Newsweek and the Chicago Tribune, and on MSNBC, CNN, ABC's ''20/20'' and elsewhere.
The brothers garnered a reputation as some of the world's foremost innovators of laparoscopic surgery, attracting cash-paying patients from around the globe.
THE MULLEN CASE, 1991
Suffering from endometriosis, 28-year-old Stacey Mullen flew from Southern California to Atlanta's Northside Hospital in 1988 to be operated on by Camran Nezhat. The surgery was quick, the pain was gone, and Mullen was elated as she walked out of the hospital the next day.
''I was ready to name my firstborn after Camran Nezhat,'' she said.
But, as often happens, the endometriosis and the pain returned. And in December 1991, Mullen flew back to Atlanta for what she thought would be another ''quick little surgery.''
The surgery, however, was neither little nor quick.
Camran and his brother Farr, with colorectal surgeon Dr. Earl Pennington assisting, spent hours using laparoscopic techniques to cut Mullen's colon and rectum free of nerves, blood vessels and connecting tissue. Her ''mobilized'' rectum was pulled inside out through her anus, and suspected endometrial tissue was removed. Her patched-up rectum was then pushed back inside.
Then the complications began.
Hours after surgery, part of her colon dropped out of her body as she sat on the toilet. For months, she suffered from extreme constipation. Sometimes she burped up her own feces.
Mullen never regained normal use of her bowel. Eventually, she received a colostomy and must insert a tube into an opening in her side to go the bathroom.
In December 1993, after nearly two years of continuing pain, she filed a malpractice suit against the Nezhats. ''Those bastards ruined my life,'' she said.
THREE ARTICLES, 1993
Shortly after taking Mullen's case, attorney James Neal discovered two medical journal articles that the Nezhats and Pennington had published after Mullen's operation.
The first appeared in Fertility & Sterility in May 1992, describing a single case using the new pull-through procedure for treating rectal endometriosis. ''As with all new procedures,'' the article said, ''there are no data to establish its safety.''
The second was published in the September 1992 issue of Surgical Laparoscopy & Endoscopy. It detailed a series of 16 rectal surgeries, similar to Mullen's, performed in late 1991 and early 1992 - the period during which her surgery took place.
Yet Mullen's case - and her complications - were not mentioned.
The article listed only a single complication: The doctors had to perform traditional open abdominal surgery in order to complete the suturing of one patient's bowel.
''This procedure has been performed safely in this initial series,'' the Nezhats wrote, and they claimed fewer problems than would be expected with regular open abdominal surgery.
The Nezhats aggressively publicized the ''success'' of the new procedure. It was touted by Ethicon Inc., the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that made the instruments the Nezhats had used. ''For the estimated 185,000 women who suffer from endometriosis of the rectum, this new advance provides them with relief from the digestive symptoms,'' the company said.
At a 1991 American Fertility Society meeting in Orlando, and a 1992 convention of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Las Vegas, Ethicon promoted their instruments and the Nezhats, even including a video of the surgery.
But skepticism about the Nezhats and their procedure was beginning to grow. The lack of complications did not make sense for such radical bowel surgery, doctors said. Some surgeons who viewed the promotional video were puzzled: They could not see evidence of endometriosis.
Stories began circulating in the surgical community around Atlanta's Northside Hospital. The medical journal articles said the average operating time for the surgeries was three hours, but during the time of the study, the Nezhat operating room had been burning lights deep into the Georgia night.
Then Neal discovered a third journal publication, written by one of Nezhat's Atlanta colleagues and published more than a year after Mullen's operation.
The article in Surgical Endoscopy described a ''pilot'' study testing the same procedure on pigs in order to assess its safety on humans.
''Some damage to the sphincter might occur,'' the authors wrote, but the long-term effects were unknown: The pigs were ''sacrificed'' before they awoke from anesthesia.
Neal and Mullen were stunned: Not only had the Nezhats omitted Mullen's case from their series - and in doing so did not report her complications - they apparently had tried out the new procedure on her and other women before it was tested on pigs.
Nezhat attorney David Walbert said the pig study ''had nothing whatever to do with the safety and efficacy'' of the human surgery described in the medical journals. The purpose of the pig experiment, he said, was to determine whether the procedure was suitable for treating cancer.
'BARBARIC,' 1993
When Neal began contacting medical experts about Mullen's surgery, many sent him letters and affidavits calling the operation radical and experimental; they characterized it as ''bizarre'' and ''barbaric.'' It resembled a cancer surgery that had been discredited years before, after complication rates as high as 50 percent were reported.
The surgery had not been vetted before a Northside Hospital Institutional Review Board, the usual requirement for an experimental procedure.
''Normally you go before an IRB, come up with scientific background, present a plan, torturous documentation, nine pages of informed consent, and you cannot charge for it,'' said Ohio general surgeon Dr. Francis Barnes.
Mullen and her insurance company, however, were billed $9,900 for the rectal surgery. She eventually ran up more than $1 million in additional medical expenses as a result of the operation, according to Neal.
Neal also learned that Mullen - and possibly four other women whose cases were included in the Nezhats' articles - had signed an unusual document, recently created by the Georgia legislature. It was called a ''waiver of informed consent,'' and it set aside a patient's right to detailed information about a surgery.
''This is incomprehensibly unethical,'' said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics and one of the nation's foremost medical ethicists. ''You can no more sign away your right to informed consent than you can voluntarily sell yourself to slavery.''
''I never knew I was signing such a document,'' Mullen said. ''I thought it was a regular consent form.''
Yet the most disturbing discovery was made in Mullen's own medical records. In his operative notes, Camran Nezhat wrote: ''There was evidence of severe endometriosis of the rectum.''
But Mullen's pathology lab report disclosed that there had been no endometriosis on the wall of her rectum at all - just a few cells in the adjoining fat. The surgery had not been necessary in the first place.
16 MEDICAL RECORDS
Neal went to court and demanded to see the medical records of the 16 other patients the Nezhats had operated on in Georgia, convinced they would show complications, more waivers of informed consent, and surgical data different from what was reported in the Nezhat articles.
But the Nezhat legal team refused to turn them over, citing privacy concerns of other patients - at least 10 of whom signed affidavits opposing any release.
Mullen was given the waiver form by mistake, they explained, and she was told about the procedure's risks. Medical experts for the Nezhats also insist that the rectal surgery was not experimental, so no Institutional Review Board process was required.
''In my opinion, the surgery performed on Mary (Stacey) Mullen was a necessary procedure and would not require any special consent form for experimental surgery,'' said Dr. Robert R. Franklin, a clinical professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Houston's Baylor College of Medicine.
The Nezhat lawyers also argue that Mullen's rectal surgery did not cause her bowel problems. ''She reported constipation before the procedure,'' said Walbert.
THE FIRST WARNING, 1993
In the early 1990s, Stanford Medical School's department of obstetrics and gynecology was in trouble. Despite the school's lofty reputation, the department was not fully accredited.
The Chicago-based Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education demanded more ''surgical volume'' before it would upgrade the program's ''provisional'' status.
Yet when Dr. Nick Spirtos heard that Stanford was recruiting the Nezhats, he could not believe it.
Spirtos is a Palo Alto gynecological oncologist with an august reputation of his own. Like the Nezhats, he is a clinical professor, which means he serves on the school's voluntary teaching faculty with surgical privileges at the medical center. He also holds the elected post of deputy chief of the obstetrics and gynecology department.
During the past nine years, he has become a leading critic of the Nezhats and their Stanford defenders.
''I think everything they've written is fraudulent,'' said Spirtos, whose office is just one floor below the Nezhats' in an upscale medical office building near Stanford. ''I don't think they should be allowed to practice medicine.''
Spirtos had traveled with colleagues to a gynecology convention in Florida to see the 1991 presentation by Camran and Farr Nezhat sponsored by Ethicon. The program included videos of two new Nezhat operations, one of them showing the rectal procedure that would be performed two months later on Mullen.
''We couldn't believe what we saw,'' Spirtos said, noting that there was no evidence of endometriosis. ''The surgeries didn't make any sense.''
But before they could quiz the Nezhats about their presentation, Spirtos recalled, the Nezhats left the podium, refusing to answer questions.
Two years later, after studying their journal articles, he warned university administrators not to bring them to Stanford. Spirtos argued that the Nezhats' published data were simply too good to be true.
But Spirtos said his advice was ignored.
''It was a perfect marriage,'' he said. ''The Nezhats had all the dough in the world but no title. And Stanford needed desperately to have surgical volume to legitimize their (obstetrics and gynecology) department.''
NEW TROUBLE, 1993
Within two years of the Nezhats' arrival in Palo Alto, Camran became director of the new Stanford Endoscopy Center for Training and Technology. And Ethicon, which had retained Nezhat as a surgical investigator, agreed to provide a $125,000 annual grant to the center.
Quickly, the Nezhats began pairing up with surgeons outside their immediate discipline - including specialists in cancer, heart and brain surgery - with the goal of expanding the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques.
The practice troubled Spirtos, and when he learned that Camran Nezhat intended to operate on a patient of one of Spirtos' medical partners, he wrote in protest to Dr. Mary Lake Polan, the chief of the obstetrics and gynecology department.
The patient was a 74-year-old woman who had undergone extensive surgery for the removal of pelvic cancer, and Spirtos told Polan that the patient's cancer had spread so extensively that laparoscopic surgery would be useless.
''Certainly, (Nezhat) has no experience in this area (treating cancer), and it seems to me serious patient care issues are being placed on the back burner in your headlong rush to promote the Nezhats,'' he said in a 1993 letter to Polan.
Despite Spirtos' protests, Nezhat and Stanford cancer surgeon Dr. Nelson Teng went ahead with the operation.
The patient was on the operating table for seven hours and was hospitalized for seven days afterward. Her bladder and bowel were punctured during the operation, Spirtos said, and the doctors could not remove all the cancer. In his report to the university's ''quality assurance'' review committee, Spirtos charged that Nezhat, credentialed as a gynecologist, was performing cancer surgeries, a specialty that requires years of extra formal training. He also laid out four other Nezhat cancer cases for the quality assurance review committee.
''No other hospital would allow a gynecologist to perform (cancer) surgeries,'' said Spirtos.
But his hope for a quick review of the five cases soon faded. ''Stanford sat on those cases for years,'' he said.
NEZHAT'S AFFIDAVIT, 1994
Meanwhile, Mullen and her attorney continued to press for the release of the files on the 16 other women who had undergone the rectal procedure. And the Nezhats continued to refuse.
In a sworn 1994 affidavit, Camran Nezhat declared it would disrupt his practice for months if he were ordered to produce records demanded by Mullen's legal team.
He described a filing system with 20,000 patients, each listed only alphabetically, with no index, no computer database and no cross-referencing by type of treatment, surgery performed, or journal publication.
''I would . . . have to manually review every single patient record . . . to determine whether the record referenced a patient whose procedure was the subject of a journal article,'' he testified.
The affidavit shocked Nezhat's critics, who say it has cast a pall on the validity of the Nezhats' research ever since.
''I've been doing this kind of research for 25 years. There is a substantial problem if you cannot link patient records to publications,'' said Dr. David Grimes, former chief of obstetrics and gynecology at San Francisco General Hospital, who briefly served as a paid expert to Mullen's legal team.
How, asks Grimes, can the Nezhats publish extensive studies based on old charts and old data involving hundreds of patients over many years if those patients' files are not indexed or cross-referenced?
Grimes was not the first doctor to question the Nezhats' research. Long before they publicized their controversial bowel surgery, competitors and collaborators alike were skeptical of the brothers' claims of surgical firsts and problem-free procedures. In 1987, Dr. Harry Reich, a world-renowned laparoscopic surgeon at New York's Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, agreed to collaborate with Camran Nezhat on a surgical study of 105 tubal pregnancies.
But Reich was bothered by Nezhat's repeated failure to share his data on 40 patients to be included in their article in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine.
''So we had to delete the data from the paper,'' Reich recalled.
The Nezhats' lawyers say Reich never requested any data that were not provided.
In 1990, a Nezhat report in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology also raised eyebrows. The Nezhats stated they had performed 4,000 laparoscopic surgeries without injuring a ureter, the tube connecting the kidney and bladder.
Their claim drew a sarcastic response from three Yale University doctors: ''The authors are to be congratulated. . . . Either these surgeons had other complications, perhaps as serious, or they possess an unbelievably high level of skill and judgment.''
Other articles in which the Nezhats claim to have reviewed thousands of old cases include:
-- A 1995 textbook article describing 214 complications among 6,949 cases in Atlanta and Stanford from 1982 to 1993.
-- A 1996 medical journal report of severe urinary tract endometriosis in 28 women among 2,226 treated for endometriosis from 1989 to 1994.
-- A 1997 study examining 5,300 surgeries dating back to 1988, counting up 11 hernias caused by insertion of the laparoscope.
Atlanta attorney Walbert scoffs at accusations of medical fraud. ''Many, many surgeons'' have conducted research with the Nezhats, he said. ''Those who have any knowledge have never claimed there was anything 'bogus' about any of the reports.''
Dr. Sally Tazuke, a Stanford reproductive endocrinologist who has worked with Camran Nezhat frequently, said his reported complications are low because he is exceptionally good at what he does - even while taking on the riskiest cases. ''If I were a patient, I would sign up with him. I'd send any family member,'' she said.
Skeptics say the stakes are high. Dr. Thomas Lyons, an Atlanta gynecological surgeon who believes the Nezhats have published journal articles with phony data, said medical fraud can lead unsuspecting doctors to hurt their patients.
''This is as dangerous a situation as you can run into in medicine, because people may be making medical decisions based on something that doesn't exist,'' he said.
If someone ever questioned the veracity of his own data, Lyons said, ''The first thing I would do is throw that data right in their face. . . . The best defense in the world is the truth.''
NEAL'S LETTER, 1995
In January 1995, Mullen's attorney, James Neal, wrote to Stanford, alerting the university to the allegations his legal team was making against the Nezhats. As a former hospital counsel himself, he said he thought they would appreciate a copy of the Mullen lawsuit.
''I feel that your institution should have the opportunity to evaluate these matters . . . given your understandable and overriding concern for the patients within your institution,'' Neal wrote.
But Stanford took no action.
Instead, Margaret Eaton, a university lawyer, forwarded the letter to Nezhat's attorney in Atlanta, with a note saying that ''we do not intend to respond to this letter, nor are further communications from Mr. Neal welcome.''
In June 1995 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education approved full accreditation to Stanford.
ALLEGATIONS, 1996
A year later, Neal sent Stanford a thick package of documents, laying out in more detail the charges against the Nezhats and asking Stanford to investigate.
Dr. Richard Popp, Stanford's senior associate dean for academic affairs, said Neal provided a ''massive amount'' of what he called ''disorganized'' information.
Popp finally opened an inquiry into the charge of scientific misconduct. But university officials contend that by that time, some of the allegations, including Neal's claim of medical journal fraud, had been thrown out by the Georgia courts.
Neal, who freely admits that he has become obsessed with exposing the Nezhats, was running up a list of legal setbacks. In his dogged pursuit of the Nezhats, he was building a reputation as a crank.
He was disqualified from the malpractice case by a Georgia judge in 1995 for ''unethical behavior'' and could no longer represent Mullen. After a federal judge last year tossed out his attempt, on behalf of another client charging malpractice, to use racketeering charges against the Nezhats, Neal was charged with contempt of court. The judge also assessed $384,000 in ''sanctions'' against the plaintiff and her remaining attorneys. The sanctions are on appeal.
Neal denies the unethical conduct allegation, and the contempt of court charge was recently dropped. The only thing he is guilty of, he says, is aggressively representing his clients against institutions willing to look the other way.
''These guys are bad doctors, some have even said evil, and they have to be stopped,'' he said.
WITNESS, 1996
Shortly after Dr. Tom Margolis joined Stanford as an assistant professor and chief of pelvic surgery, Farr Nezhat invited the newcomer to watch him perform a complex laparoscopic procedure.
During the operation, Nezhat cut the patient's ureter. Margolis, who had also served as director of urogynecologic/pelvic surgery at Northwestern University Medical School, assumed it was an accident, a known but unwelcome complication of the difficult surgical technique. He stepped in to assist Nezhat in repairing it.
But a short time later Margolis learned that, in a post-operative review session and the operative report, Nezhat described the cut as deliberate. He said he sliced the ureter to remove endometriosis that could have blocked urine flow.
Margolis was outraged. He said that he saw no endometriosis on the ureter and that the pathology report proved it.
''It was clear that Dr. Nezhat was performing an unnecessary procedure,'' he said in a sworn affidavit.
THE POLAN MEETING, 1996
More than two years passed before Stanford's quality assurance committee took up the review of the five cancer cases in which Spirtos had alleged improper surgeries by Camran Nezhat.
Just before the review committee was finally set to meet, Dr. Mary Lake Polan, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology, dropped by Margolis' office. He was one of the physicians reviewing the cases.
''We need to make sure that Nezhat is cleared on all these (cancer) cases,'' she told him, according to his affidavit.
Ultimately Margolis - and the other members of the quality assurance committee - voted in favor of Nezhat on all charges.
Polan said Margolis' allegations are false.
''I adamantly deny the statements attributed to me and deny there has been any pressure to exonerate any physician during the quality of care committee process," she declared in a written response to The Chronicle.
Margolis' decision to vote to exonerate Nezhat would haunt him for more than a year, until finally he had to act.
THE SHUER LETTER, 1998
In April 1998, Margolis met with Dr. Lawrence Shuer, chief of staff of the medical center. He told Shuer about the cut ureter incident and the pressure Polan had allegedly exerted on him.
''He (Shuer) acutely and abruptly ended our conversation, and I was excused from his office,'' Margolis said.
More than a year later, when Shuer learned Margolis was still criticizing the Nezhats and Stanford, he sent a written warning:
''Rest assured that Stanford Hospital and Clinics intends to pursue its full legal remedies if these defamatory and libelous statement do not cease,'' Shuer wrote.
Furious, Margolis, who had left Stanford to practice with Spirtos at the Women's Cancer Center in Palo Alto and Los Gatos, wrote back, saying that Shuer's job as chief of staff was ''patient protection not doctor protection.''
''The data which (the Nezhats) have published, including the rectal eversion procedure, is fraudulent, yet their publications are being accepted as standards in the surgical community. Stanford, by not auditing this clinical data, has ignored the concerns of scores of surgeons,'' Margolis wrote.
STANFORD'S DUTY, 2000
Defenders of the Nezhats at Stanford dismiss both Spirtos and Margolis as jealous competitors. But other medical experts say Stanford should have demanded a review of the 16 cases and has shirked its responsibility to verify the Nezhats' research claims.
''Stanford has a duty to review this,'' said Dr. Warren Grundfest, chairman of Biomedical Engineering at UCLA and an expert in new medical technologies. ''Serious allegations have been made by credible people, but Stanford has played like an ostrich with its head in the sand.''
But Stanford officials contend they are not obligated to review the 16 patient records because the rectal surgeries were performed in Georgia before the Nezhats came to the West Coast. Shuer said the procedure in question has never been performed at Stanford.
It was appropriate for the Nezhats to leave Mullen's case out of the medical journal, according to Stanford, because she was ultimately found not to have rectal endometriosis like the other patients.
Stanford reviewers have never asked the Nezhats or Northside Hospital for the records to verify the accuracy of the other 16 cases. ''We have no right to the records and do not want to violate patient privacy,'' said Stanford's lawyer Debra Zumwalt.
The university also never interviewed Mullen or the 20 doctors who have expressed concern over the Nezhats' research.
According to Stanford, the appropriate institutions to investigate the Nezhats are Northside Hospital, the Georgia Medical Board and Mercer University, where the Nezhats were clinical professors at the time of the surgeries. ''Stanford will carefully review the conclusions of those investigations,'' said Popp.
But a spokesman for Mercer, a Macon, Ga., medical school founded in 1986, said the school has no investigation pending.
The Georgia Medical Board's investigation of the Nezhats is continuing. The board will not comment on its status.
Stanford attorney Zumwalt said Margolis' complaint to Shuer regarding the cut ureter incident was never put in writing. Shuer said he asked Margolis for more information, and none was provided, but the case has now been identified and is being investigated by the quality assurance committee.
The university said the Nezhats have been cleared of allegations that they operated outside their specialty. Officials would not comment, however, on any details of the five quality assurance cases because they are confidential.
''One thing I can point out,'' said Zumwalt, ''is that doctors and patients and their families can reasonably disagree as to how aggressive to be in treating terminal diseases.''
GEORGIA COURTROOM, 2000
Mullen has refused to engage in monetary settlement talks with the Nezhats and promises to continue her suit until the records of the 16 other women are made public.
''My life has been changed in a very horrible and profound way by the experiment (that) Camran Nezhat has conducted upon me without my knowledge,'' Mullen said in an affidavit. ''I despair that other women will be injured by well-meaning surgeons who believe Camran Nezhat's article that there were no complications from this new surgery.''
In November, after a battle spanning six years - and six judges - Superior Court Judge Melvin Westmoreland in Atlanta ordered a confidential release of the records to Mullen's lawyers, and in January, the Nezhats and Northside Hospital turned them over.
While the records remain sealed, medical experts hired by Mullen's legal team to review the documents have written Judge Westmoreland expressing their concern about what the records contain, and urging that they be unsealed, in the public interest. ..
William Carlsen can be reached at wcarlsen@sfgate.com. Sabin Russell can be reached at sabin@sfgate.com.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Karen Steward in a full blown rage - IHRT blasts from the past
Kruschinski's Puppet # 682 Karen Steward
We at IHRT especially loved this innocent little rant by Karen Steward, one of many. This post in particular was sent out in a complaint to the FBI...It's when IHRT realised we were not dealing with rational being at all...
See Karen Stewards rantings and then think of the word:
Projection
"Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."
"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
"Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies."
"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."
"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others."
"An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way."
_________________________________
CommentsClose this window Collapse commentsAnonymous said...test4:55 PM
Delete
Anonymous said...Amazing! Karen here posting under anonymous, but glad to provide my identity....It seems Bev and Dawn do not like a torch coming near THEIR cowering faces (ouch!) as they have made "changes" on their BLOG!
Running for cover, are we? Too hot for you?
Last night I posted in response to one of Bev's denial postings and challenged her to come to my home, bring a computer technician and checkout my computer. I even offered to pay for her flight. She has denied to Harry Reich (and to anyone reading her nasty BLOG site) that she has written particular emails that I have in my files and on my computer.....In her postings (seen within this BLOG site) she denies, denies while addding her "lol....lol" comments..(often times laughter is a sign of true nervousness....an attempt to 'cover up', to make 'light of', in hopes others will BELIEVE the lie)..When challenged to come here, Bev cowers (as any coward would) and begins asking, "Who posted this?" Bev you KNOW who posted it--I didn't register on your BLOG as I don't intend to JOIN your nasty little cowardly site! Your heading reads, "Karen Incriminates Herself" so who else, other than yours truly, would challenge you to come here? Duh!.....You always play the role of the innocent.Amazingly today my IP address has been excluded from your ardvark journalsite.....this is the second time this has occurred, although I have NEVER once even posted there nor have I ever spent much time there, as a matter of fact, I have only gone there when someone has written me and asked me to read something posted there. Yet they suddenly (today) after my post last night, you and Dawn feel the need to block my IP address AND "change" your blog.....it seems most of the places in which to 'comment' have been done away with.....and in place this is what I found:"new comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator". Wonder why? After much searching for a place to post on your BLOG, this thread still had a 'comment' button, so I post here.....(whoops, Bev, you forgot one)...Ms. Bev and Ms. Dawn, you will have to be on your toes as I have access to over 50 computers~~as soon as this computer was denied, I just jumped on another.....don't mean to drive you two more insane than you already are,but I do believe I can keep you both hopping to block IP addresses. Bev, you are a coward. Again, come out in the open if you are who/what you say you are.....I will pay your flight here and we will lay out my computer and its contents for all to see. I have nothing to hide (unlike you)......you are worse than a bully on a school ground, even those bullies will FACE the people they are attacking. Not you, not Dawn....no,no,no...you both hide in a room in the comfort of your homes destroying people's lives via The Internet, using a keyboard as your weapon, typing lies, slander and deceit and spreading wickedness about many, many people simply by typing on a keyboard. Cheapshot!Cowards, that's what you are. You have made it your mission in life to"police" anyone that has anything working concerning ARD..(especially GOOD works)...you attack ONLY the best....wonder WHY??
You both are COWARDS, scared of your own shadows, scared to confront the people you ruthlessly scorn. And why do you do it? Oh, we know! It is for the poor ARD sufferers! Bev just wants to HELP the poor suffering adhesion victims. No, don't think so...Bev has her own little agenda going on and it has NOTHING--I repeat NOTHING to do with ARD sufferers. She speaks flowery words to the people suffering miserably in pain, coaxing them into her web....how many of them get well? Isn't this your goal, Bev? To get them well? Why are most still sick? Do you have an answer? Why do I get emails from them? Do you have an answer? I'm sure you do and it will be a good one.......as you think you are the MOTHER of all ARD victims....yet, ARD is NOT your agenda, but merely a covering for your true motive. You send out vile letters (as I stated before) in an effort to ruin honest, good, caring people.... because you are a COWARD.....You hate uprightness, kindness and goodness......you are cold, uncaring, wicked, calloused and evil....yet what is you agenda? Why do you continue your attack on upstanding citizens? As I said before, if you have a'beef' with someone,take them to court, hire you a lawyer.....but no, that would be the RESPECTABLE thing to do and the victim could then defend themselves and you couldn't have that! And,it would cost you something...this way, the Internet,.....it's made just for people like you that choose to use it in avile manner, as it provides you a cheapshot....you can attack and stay hidden as you delight in your harm of others. You say you are out to PROTECT ARD sufferers....how many have you protected? None that I know of...in fact I know of several that regret the day they listened to your entrapping words. Your agenda has NOTHING to do with ARD sufferers......and you and I both know it......what/who is hidden behind the curtain that you both willingly attack for? I know, as do many others, and it SURE isn't hurting ARD victims. You stated in your reponse to me "you are one sick cookie".....oh no, YOU and your sidekick Dawn, created this BLOG, not I; it's not me harrassing BB, DK and DS, among others.....call me all the names you like as nothing within me is harmed by you or your words......I have NO fear of you and that in itself scares you to death......You only say I am a sick cookie because it makes you FEEL better.....you don't expect anyone to call youwhat you are~~A COWARD~~or expose your lies......run, run, run.....block the comment buttons......what are you scared of? What's a blog without comment buttons? C'mon Bev, you want to play with people's lives, at least allow them to post if they like......this BLOG is much different than a rampage on an adhesion site yet you are going to CONTROL a BLOG? Post all your nasty vile lies and then block your victims from responding? Like I said, you are one that has to play a game where your victims cannot defend themselves.....cheapshot.
To any adhesion sufferer reading this site: My daughter suffered thirteen years in pain and misery before I found Dr. Daniel Kruschinski and I found him due to other women that had been to him and were posting about their lives being changed after getting to this doctor. The vile postings within this site regarding Dr. Kruschinski are hate-filled lies.....he is THE leading surgeon that is paving a path for ARD sufferers across the globe using his unique method of surgery......he has a growing list of people that are well and are no longer suffering. I am more than thrilled that my daughter is on that list....We live in Texas but my daughter tells everyone her doctor is in Germany.......she went through hell prior to meet Dr.Daniel Kruschinski......thank God, there IS an answer for the ARD sufferer and that answer lies within the talented mind and hands of Dr. DanielKruschinski.......I have no hidden agendas, nor am I am paid by Dr.Kruschinski.....I speak from the heart of a woman that watched her child suffer in agony and many times begging to die. I made a promise I would tell others WHEN an answer was found as I always knew God would lead us tothe answer........I am saddened that the Internet is being used by a couple of women with their own hidden agendas that CLAIM they want to help ARD victims.......the only help for an ARD victim is to make your way to the doctor that God has raised up to deliver ARD sufferers from their misery......you don't needs lies and manipulation, you need an answer....the best hope you possibly have for becoming adhesion free is with the doctor that is doing what no other doctor is doing: Dr. Daniel Kruschinski. I can be reached at kann@charter.net and my daughter is willing to speak to any sufferers by phone......
June 8, 2005
http://ihrt.blogspot.com/2005/06/lenghts-people-go-to-and-how-we-dont.html
We at IHRT especially loved this innocent little rant by Karen Steward, one of many. This post in particular was sent out in a complaint to the FBI...It's when IHRT realised we were not dealing with rational being at all...
See Karen Stewards rantings and then think of the word:
Projection
"Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."
"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
"Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies."
"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest."
"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others."
"An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but who is unwilling to perceive himself as an antagonist, convinces himself that his opponent feels and would act the same way."
_________________________________
CommentsClose this window Collapse commentsAnonymous said...test4:55 PM
Delete
Anonymous said...Amazing! Karen here posting under anonymous, but glad to provide my identity....It seems Bev and Dawn do not like a torch coming near THEIR cowering faces (ouch!) as they have made "changes" on their BLOG!
Running for cover, are we? Too hot for you?
Last night I posted in response to one of Bev's denial postings and challenged her to come to my home, bring a computer technician and checkout my computer. I even offered to pay for her flight. She has denied to Harry Reich (and to anyone reading her nasty BLOG site) that she has written particular emails that I have in my files and on my computer.....In her postings (seen within this BLOG site) she denies, denies while addding her "lol....lol" comments..(often times laughter is a sign of true nervousness....an attempt to 'cover up', to make 'light of', in hopes others will BELIEVE the lie)..When challenged to come here, Bev cowers (as any coward would) and begins asking, "Who posted this?" Bev you KNOW who posted it--I didn't register on your BLOG as I don't intend to JOIN your nasty little cowardly site! Your heading reads, "Karen Incriminates Herself" so who else, other than yours truly, would challenge you to come here? Duh!.....You always play the role of the innocent.Amazingly today my IP address has been excluded from your ardvark journalsite.....this is the second time this has occurred, although I have NEVER once even posted there nor have I ever spent much time there, as a matter of fact, I have only gone there when someone has written me and asked me to read something posted there. Yet they suddenly (today) after my post last night, you and Dawn feel the need to block my IP address AND "change" your blog.....it seems most of the places in which to 'comment' have been done away with.....and in place this is what I found:"new comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator". Wonder why? After much searching for a place to post on your BLOG, this thread still had a 'comment' button, so I post here.....(whoops, Bev, you forgot one)...Ms. Bev and Ms. Dawn, you will have to be on your toes as I have access to over 50 computers~~as soon as this computer was denied, I just jumped on another.....don't mean to drive you two more insane than you already are,but I do believe I can keep you both hopping to block IP addresses. Bev, you are a coward. Again, come out in the open if you are who/what you say you are.....I will pay your flight here and we will lay out my computer and its contents for all to see. I have nothing to hide (unlike you)......you are worse than a bully on a school ground, even those bullies will FACE the people they are attacking. Not you, not Dawn....no,no,no...you both hide in a room in the comfort of your homes destroying people's lives via The Internet, using a keyboard as your weapon, typing lies, slander and deceit and spreading wickedness about many, many people simply by typing on a keyboard. Cheapshot!Cowards, that's what you are. You have made it your mission in life to"police" anyone that has anything working concerning ARD..(especially GOOD works)...you attack ONLY the best....wonder WHY??
You both are COWARDS, scared of your own shadows, scared to confront the people you ruthlessly scorn. And why do you do it? Oh, we know! It is for the poor ARD sufferers! Bev just wants to HELP the poor suffering adhesion victims. No, don't think so...Bev has her own little agenda going on and it has NOTHING--I repeat NOTHING to do with ARD sufferers. She speaks flowery words to the people suffering miserably in pain, coaxing them into her web....how many of them get well? Isn't this your goal, Bev? To get them well? Why are most still sick? Do you have an answer? Why do I get emails from them? Do you have an answer? I'm sure you do and it will be a good one.......as you think you are the MOTHER of all ARD victims....yet, ARD is NOT your agenda, but merely a covering for your true motive. You send out vile letters (as I stated before) in an effort to ruin honest, good, caring people.... because you are a COWARD.....You hate uprightness, kindness and goodness......you are cold, uncaring, wicked, calloused and evil....yet what is you agenda? Why do you continue your attack on upstanding citizens? As I said before, if you have a'beef' with someone,take them to court, hire you a lawyer.....but no, that would be the RESPECTABLE thing to do and the victim could then defend themselves and you couldn't have that! And,it would cost you something...this way, the Internet,.....it's made just for people like you that choose to use it in avile manner, as it provides you a cheapshot....you can attack and stay hidden as you delight in your harm of others. You say you are out to PROTECT ARD sufferers....how many have you protected? None that I know of...in fact I know of several that regret the day they listened to your entrapping words. Your agenda has NOTHING to do with ARD sufferers......and you and I both know it......what/who is hidden behind the curtain that you both willingly attack for? I know, as do many others, and it SURE isn't hurting ARD victims. You stated in your reponse to me "you are one sick cookie".....oh no, YOU and your sidekick Dawn, created this BLOG, not I; it's not me harrassing BB, DK and DS, among others.....call me all the names you like as nothing within me is harmed by you or your words......I have NO fear of you and that in itself scares you to death......You only say I am a sick cookie because it makes you FEEL better.....you don't expect anyone to call youwhat you are~~A COWARD~~or expose your lies......run, run, run.....block the comment buttons......what are you scared of? What's a blog without comment buttons? C'mon Bev, you want to play with people's lives, at least allow them to post if they like......this BLOG is much different than a rampage on an adhesion site yet you are going to CONTROL a BLOG? Post all your nasty vile lies and then block your victims from responding? Like I said, you are one that has to play a game where your victims cannot defend themselves.....cheapshot.
To any adhesion sufferer reading this site: My daughter suffered thirteen years in pain and misery before I found Dr. Daniel Kruschinski and I found him due to other women that had been to him and were posting about their lives being changed after getting to this doctor. The vile postings within this site regarding Dr. Kruschinski are hate-filled lies.....he is THE leading surgeon that is paving a path for ARD sufferers across the globe using his unique method of surgery......he has a growing list of people that are well and are no longer suffering. I am more than thrilled that my daughter is on that list....We live in Texas but my daughter tells everyone her doctor is in Germany.......she went through hell prior to meet Dr.Daniel Kruschinski......thank God, there IS an answer for the ARD sufferer and that answer lies within the talented mind and hands of Dr. DanielKruschinski.......I have no hidden agendas, nor am I am paid by Dr.Kruschinski.....I speak from the heart of a woman that watched her child suffer in agony and many times begging to die. I made a promise I would tell others WHEN an answer was found as I always knew God would lead us tothe answer........I am saddened that the Internet is being used by a couple of women with their own hidden agendas that CLAIM they want to help ARD victims.......the only help for an ARD victim is to make your way to the doctor that God has raised up to deliver ARD sufferers from their misery......you don't needs lies and manipulation, you need an answer....the best hope you possibly have for becoming adhesion free is with the doctor that is doing what no other doctor is doing: Dr. Daniel Kruschinski. I can be reached at kann@charter.net and my daughter is willing to speak to any sufferers by phone......
June 8, 2005
http://ihrt.blogspot.com/2005/06/lenghts-people-go-to-and-how-we-dont.html
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Karen Steward writes "Autobiography" Is she confessing her love with Dr. Kruschinski after all?
Karen Steward writes "Autobiography" Is she confessing her love with Dr. Kruschinski after all?
FREE Karen Stewards' "NEW" Book! FREE (See bottom of this post for details)
"The Bizarre FANTASY'S of a "Dysfunctional Texas MOTHER!"
Karen took a grain of salt and wrote ONE book she paid to publish herself.
Now she is trying to create the image of herself as a prolific author.....claims of other book written WHICH is not true! Once again we call Karen a liar. ( we aren't talking about the ezine articles are we...lol)
Also listed under the tilte of:
"Doctors: Bound by Secrecy? Victims: Bound by Pain! "
Once again Karen Steard is "hawking" her book to the innocent, knowing it contains obsolete and bogus information, yet Karen will rationalize anything to get attention, no matter the cost to others! IHRT finds her following in her "mentors" footsteps of soliciting her book where she thinks she can con people easily!
Karen Steward karen, steward United States - Professional On The Web Throughout her life, Karen Steward has sailed many rough seas, ... After exploratory surgery of her pelvic organs, adhesions were revealed. ...
BusinessCard2 Karen Steward Weatherford Texas 76087 Karen Stewardʼs book is more than a story of illness. Though Steward describes the crippling pain of one suffererʼs experience with Adhesion Related ...
Karen Steward - Linked In View Karen Steward's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's ... After exploratory surgery of her pelvic organs, adhesions were revealed. ...
IHRT'S REVIEW of Karen Steward's:The author of this book promotes it as containing information about "Adhesion Related Disorder" and a young ladies walk with it. Yeah Right!
IHRT found the book to reflect the authors impressions of what ARD victims live with while battling this disorder, and she does it in a way that leads one to think that SHE would give anything to have ARD herself as she seems to thrive on all the medical attention and difficulty one faces when dealing with ARD.
There is a tone of "excitement," an almost euphoric behavior in the author whenever she "confronts" Dr.'s, or anyone else even remotely associated with her daughters medical care, and one must remind themselves that the daughter is an adult, not a child as the mother would have one believe as she "diligently" controls everything in her daughters life.
By the time the reader finishes this book, IF they finish this book that is, they could easily draw the conclusion that Karen Steward suffers from " Munchhausen by Proxy" based on her bizarre behaviors and outbursts.
There is a heavy lean toward the possibility that a "romance" between her daughter's OBGYN in Germany, Dr. Kruschinski, and herself exists. Not only does Karen Steward say terrible things about her husband, she admits to hating him more the once and giving him the evil "eye" assuming the reader knows what that is! It is chilling!
It is interesting that Karen's words soften when she writes about Dr. Kruschinski, a man who her daughter admits to NOT liking at all, and a daughter who admits that she is still fighting the pain and symptoms associated with ARD!
On a sad note here, Melissa's mother, the author seems to find it difficult to accept that the OBGYN in Germany whom she idealizes might not have been any different for her daughter the the many Dr.'s in the USA whom she calls names and accuses of being frauds in this book! (Note: It is a well known fact that while the author was in Germany seeking medical intervention for her daughter( unsuccessfully,) she had words with the OBGYN's mistress more then once!)
Can you imagine waking up to HIS face!?? YIKES!!" Ms. Katzer can. Both wives can...and a few "Dubon buddies" can! Can Karen??
IHRT found that this book DID NOT reflect anything about the true struggles victims of ARD face in their fight to get well, instead it is filled with the "psychotic" behaviors of a mother filled with anger, (she does confess that she has had anger problems well before her daughter was diagnosed with ARD,) hatred, bizarre behaviors, and VERY judgmental of just about everyone in her life, except her daughter's OBGYN that is! (In response to a question Karen asks her reader in this book, IHRT responds "YES, Karen, you definately should seek anger management again! Without a doubt!)
Here are some other things IHRT found in the book:= 99.9% of the "treatment" options mentioned in the book were obsolete and were proven ineffective well before the book went to print, and the author was 99.9% aware of this fact!
=There is a hint of the possibility that the author might also have a "drinking or drug problem" again, based on what appear to be VERY dysfunctional behaviors, severe mood swings and tyrants as she goes off on so frequently. This behavior is NOT indicative of a loving, mother advocating for her child, again, it is hard to keep in mind that the author is not writing about a child with ARD but rather an adult daughter!
(The daughter's ARD trials and tribulations are silent within these pages, interestingly enough as it is promoted as a book ABOUT the struggles of ARD! Again, are we reading the words of a mother who appears to wish she had ARD and all the "attention" one reaps from living with it, even though 99.9% of this attention is NEGATIVE ! SICK, but it does appear in the book as though this mother has that desire! Creepy person!)
=Karen Steward, author and mother extraordinaire, writes more about her daughters vagina and rectum in the book (and on the Internet) then one would find a victim of ARD writing about themselves! No sense of respect for her daughters privacy is found in this book.
=This book has overtones of this mother exploiting her own daughter for purposes of satisfying her own selfish needs and attention!
=This book offers persons with ARD absolutely nothing!
=This book is NOT correct in it's portrayal of this most hideous disorder!
=This book is absolutely useless in any capacity for education and awareness of "Adhesion Related Disorder!"
In IHRT's opinion, "Doctors: Bound by Secrecy? Victims: Bound by Pain!" should be listed alongside "A Million Little Pieces" and other non credible books that make the claim of offering factual material within it's pages, but instead one finds it filled with out right lies! Both these books seem to be written through the mind of some needy authors!
IHRT's opinion is that this book was written to lure patients to a Surgery with Daniel Kruschinski thus, Karen Steward is part of his organized crime spree. IHRT has warned you all along!
There is definite proof of everything IHRT has claimed to be fact coming soon and in writing no less! ONLY ON IHRT!
Facts:
(Remember folks, in these "state of the art facilities," where Kruschinski performed your surgery there was never the capactity to video the procedure.. "ONLY IN THE WORLD of ENDOGYN" could videos not be done. Hmmmm, are we now finding that Kru seems to have an endless supply of videos showing HIM performing surgery on others???
MOST of you never even had the Spraygel used in your proceedure, but you did pay for it, don't forget to thank Karen Steward, Helen Dynda and Lisa Gravens for helping you get to Endogyn and spend your money!
IHRT wishes they could say the same for ENDOGYN, but we cannot as "Endogyn" as an entity never existed on anyhting but a web site.
Lies do not count as criminal activity, however a whole lot of others things associated with the practices Kruschinski and Katzer certainly do!IHRT as always reported 100% truth! Take a stroll back in the IHRT archives and re-read our posts with an open mind! For ARD patients to Kruschinski, consider how you are feeling today and what we tried to tell you about Kruschinski!
Where is King Kru today?
Where is Helen and Karen and Lisa today?
Where is Micheala Katzer today?
Where is Reich, Mettler, Goeshen today?
Where is Dippy Dr. Hutter today?
Try to schedule anything with any of them today!
Try to contact any of them in any facility listed in the Endogyn web site today!
FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! ONLY on IHRT!
Karen Steward karen, steward United States Professional On The WebKaren Steward exploratory surgery pelvic organs, adhesions BusinessCard2 Karen Steward Weatherford Texas Karen Steward book illness Steward crippling pain Adhesion Related DisorderKaren Steward - LinkedInKaren Steward LinkedIn. LinkedInEndogyn, Kruschinski, Katzer, Mettler, Reich,Endo,
FREE Karen Stewards' "NEW" Book! FREE (See bottom of this post for details)
"The Bizarre FANTASY'S of a "Dysfunctional Texas MOTHER!"
Karen took a grain of salt and wrote ONE book she paid to publish herself.
Now she is trying to create the image of herself as a prolific author.....claims of other book written WHICH is not true! Once again we call Karen a liar. ( we aren't talking about the ezine articles are we...lol)
Also listed under the tilte of:
"Doctors: Bound by Secrecy? Victims: Bound by Pain! "
Once again Karen Steard is "hawking" her book to the innocent, knowing it contains obsolete and bogus information, yet Karen will rationalize anything to get attention, no matter the cost to others! IHRT finds her following in her "mentors" footsteps of soliciting her book where she thinks she can con people easily!
Karen Steward karen, steward United States - Professional On The Web Throughout her life, Karen Steward has sailed many rough seas, ... After exploratory surgery of her pelvic organs, adhesions were revealed. ...
BusinessCard2 Karen Steward Weatherford Texas 76087 Karen Stewardʼs book is more than a story of illness. Though Steward describes the crippling pain of one suffererʼs experience with Adhesion Related ...
Karen Steward - Linked In View Karen Steward's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's ... After exploratory surgery of her pelvic organs, adhesions were revealed. ...
Look at the words Karen uses to sell her junk...amazing, like she has no conscience at all, HELLO! ( Did IHRT really ask this???)
This book appears to be the "autobiography" of a VERY dysfunctional Texas Mother - Karen Steward!
IHRT'S REVIEW of Karen Steward's:The author of this book promotes it as containing information about "Adhesion Related Disorder" and a young ladies walk with it. Yeah Right!
IHRT found the book to reflect the authors impressions of what ARD victims live with while battling this disorder, and she does it in a way that leads one to think that SHE would give anything to have ARD herself as she seems to thrive on all the medical attention and difficulty one faces when dealing with ARD.
There is a tone of "excitement," an almost euphoric behavior in the author whenever she "confronts" Dr.'s, or anyone else even remotely associated with her daughters medical care, and one must remind themselves that the daughter is an adult, not a child as the mother would have one believe as she "diligently" controls everything in her daughters life.
By the time the reader finishes this book, IF they finish this book that is, they could easily draw the conclusion that Karen Steward suffers from " Munchhausen by Proxy" based on her bizarre behaviors and outbursts.
There is a heavy lean toward the possibility that a "romance" between her daughter's OBGYN in Germany, Dr. Kruschinski, and herself exists. Not only does Karen Steward say terrible things about her husband, she admits to hating him more the once and giving him the evil "eye" assuming the reader knows what that is! It is chilling!
It is interesting that Karen's words soften when she writes about Dr. Kruschinski, a man who her daughter admits to NOT liking at all, and a daughter who admits that she is still fighting the pain and symptoms associated with ARD!
On a sad note here, Melissa's mother, the author seems to find it difficult to accept that the OBGYN in Germany whom she idealizes might not have been any different for her daughter the the many Dr.'s in the USA whom she calls names and accuses of being frauds in this book! (Note: It is a well known fact that while the author was in Germany seeking medical intervention for her daughter( unsuccessfully,) she had words with the OBGYN's mistress more then once!)
Can you imagine waking up to HIS face!?? YIKES!!" Ms. Katzer can. Both wives can...and a few "Dubon buddies" can! Can Karen?? IHRT found that this book DID NOT reflect anything about the true struggles victims of ARD face in their fight to get well, instead it is filled with the "psychotic" behaviors of a mother filled with anger, (she does confess that she has had anger problems well before her daughter was diagnosed with ARD,) hatred, bizarre behaviors, and VERY judgmental of just about everyone in her life, except her daughter's OBGYN that is! (In response to a question Karen asks her reader in this book, IHRT responds "YES, Karen, you definately should seek anger management again! Without a doubt!)
Here are some other things IHRT found in the book:= 99.9% of the "treatment" options mentioned in the book were obsolete and were proven ineffective well before the book went to print, and the author was 99.9% aware of this fact!
=There is a hint of the possibility that the author might also have a "drinking or drug problem" again, based on what appear to be VERY dysfunctional behaviors, severe mood swings and tyrants as she goes off on so frequently. This behavior is NOT indicative of a loving, mother advocating for her child, again, it is hard to keep in mind that the author is not writing about a child with ARD but rather an adult daughter!
(The daughter's ARD trials and tribulations are silent within these pages, interestingly enough as it is promoted as a book ABOUT the struggles of ARD! Again, are we reading the words of a mother who appears to wish she had ARD and all the "attention" one reaps from living with it, even though 99.9% of this attention is NEGATIVE ! SICK, but it does appear in the book as though this mother has that desire! Creepy person!)
=Karen Steward, author and mother extraordinaire, writes more about her daughters vagina and rectum in the book (and on the Internet) then one would find a victim of ARD writing about themselves! No sense of respect for her daughters privacy is found in this book.
=This book has overtones of this mother exploiting her own daughter for purposes of satisfying her own selfish needs and attention!
=This book offers persons with ARD absolutely nothing!
=This book is NOT correct in it's portrayal of this most hideous disorder!
=This book is absolutely useless in any capacity for education and awareness of "Adhesion Related Disorder!"
In IHRT's opinion, "Doctors: Bound by Secrecy? Victims: Bound by Pain!" should be listed alongside "A Million Little Pieces" and other non credible books that make the claim of offering factual material within it's pages, but instead one finds it filled with out right lies! Both these books seem to be written through the mind of some needy authors!
More honestly and on a serious note, IHRT recommends that Karen's book be promoted under "Mental Disorders" as it does offer what appears to be a profile of a very deranged person, and a mother no less, who enjoys her daughter's suffering as long as the mother gets the attention!
One has to wonder if all the "mothers" in Texas are bred with some sort of psychosis and can only live through their daughters lives!
One has to wonder if all the "mothers" in Texas are bred with some sort of psychosis and can only live through their daughters lives!
On a positive note about this book, IHRT heard through the grapevine that Karen's husband said that this book portrays an accurate depiction of Karen Steward's behaviors, and is actually an "autobiography" and in that, this book was factual he said!
In IHRTS opinion this book does NOT offer victims of ARD hope, but rather snake oil! (But then again, when has Karen Steward ever offered hope to victims of ARD?)
In IHRTS opinion this book does NOT offer victims of ARD hope, but rather snake oil! (But then again, when has Karen Steward ever offered hope to victims of ARD?)
Here ia peek at what you will find between the covers of this book, and maybe between the sheets of a bed in Germany......and if this blurb from the book doesn't make any sense to you, know that it is 100% indicative of everything else found in this book!
http://www.karensteward.typepad.com/Adhesion sufferers are all too familiar with the exhausting trips in and out of doctors' offices in hope of finding a doctor who will help them. This posting in not meant as an advertisement for Mercola: I can relate to this! but rather as food for thought for those who feel hopeless when it comes to pain, medicine, and health related issues. The Teflon application in this story reminds me of the touted "injection" that was pushed at Melissa at her follow-up visit after her first surgery in which adhesions were revealed. The surgeon who uncovered the true cause of illness--adhesions--later insisted that she be 'treated' for the pain of endometriosis. (Confusing enough, huh?).......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, here are a few points to ponder IF anyone reads the book that is:
http://www.karensteward.typepad.com/Adhesion sufferers are all too familiar with the exhausting trips in and out of doctors' offices in hope of finding a doctor who will help them. This posting in not meant as an advertisement for Mercola: I can relate to this! but rather as food for thought for those who feel hopeless when it comes to pain, medicine, and health related issues. The Teflon application in this story reminds me of the touted "injection" that was pushed at Melissa at her follow-up visit after her first surgery in which adhesions were revealed. The surgeon who uncovered the true cause of illness--adhesions--later insisted that she be 'treated' for the pain of endometriosis. (Confusing enough, huh?).......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, here are a few points to ponder IF anyone reads the book that is:
~Did the doctors have Melissa's pain and suffering; and her best interest, at heart? Or was there an ulterior motive behind the suggested 'treatment'?
~Did Kruschinski have Melissa's best interest at heart, or, did he have her mothers "boobs" on his mind?
~Did all these Dr.'s that Karen insisted her daughter see just want money?
~ Has Karen always hated her neighbors so much?~ Has Karen always been so "judgmental" of everyone she meets?
~Does Karen still hate Kruschinski's mistress, Micheala Katzer, like she did when she was with her in Germany? (IHRT thinks that jealousy over "STUD KRU" caused sparks to fly between Mistress Katzer and Karen!)
~Is Karen reveling signs of "Munchhausen by Proxy" in her behaviors of what appear to be almost a fervor pitched excitment whenever Melissa required medical attention? (Keep in mind that Melissa is a grown women here! Perhaps SHE really cannot make a decision having a controlling mother such as Karen presents herself as!)
~ Did Karen and Kru spend more time drinking together in his office then Kru spent "Doctoring her daughter?
~Did Karen find her daughters OBGYN a better fit for her then her own husband?
~Do ya think Karen promoted this book to her church family and/or her neighbors? LOL!
~Did Karen ever really respect her daughter throughout this ordeal?
~Does melissa have some sort of psychological/emotional disorder to need her mother to do all the bizarre things she claims in this book to have done on behalf of her adult daughter?
~Is Karen an ARD wannabe? (Sic)
~Does Karen's Endogyn posting handle "Gingirl" bring visions of a card player or drinker to mind when reading about Karen's behaviors in this book?(IHRT wonders who Karen would play cards with the way she belittles all the people in this book! But we do know how Doc Kruschinski drinks, so perhaps they did not play cards all those times they were in his office "advocating" for ARD victims!)
~Why wouldn't Karen respect her daughter and "butt" out of her bussiness when her daughter asked her to? This book portrays Karen as being a controlling, nasty, overbearing, mother who is going to do whatever she wants to regardless of how it impacts a very ill daughter, who she makes out to be a dummy with no self-esteem or brains to think for herself.
Here IS what you will find is this book:
* LOTS of hate and anger! (Directed at just about everyone, the REAL sad part is Karen's intense real hatred toward her own husband, sort of worth reading as life in the "Steward" house is like a soap opera!)
*Melissa has never been well and is having a subsequent bowel obstruction. (Of course, like everyone else out of Endogyn who complains of pain and problems as described in this book, is caused by something OTHER then adhesions! So, you men out there who have pain after Endogyn had better have your "ovary's" checked as it could be endo!)
*Karen led so many to Dr. Kruschinski and his hook with her bogus success story of Melissa. (IHRT: How many patients harvested to Kru by Karen are now saying, " NOW she TELLS US Melissa was never well after her surgery with Kru! Heck, Melissa never even LIKED Kru! He is a disgusting pig after all, perhaps Melissa does have some smarts?)
* Karen Steward gives medical advice without a license! (IHRT: She thinks she is an expert on ARD, when in fact she is no different then the Dr's she describes in her book as frauds and idiots!) * Karen discusses more private details about her daughters vagina and rectum then any victim of ARD would discuss about themselves, and then she spews it all over the Internet! ( IHRT see's this behavior as being indicative of " Munchhausen by Proxy" symptoms!)
* Promotions of Endogyn, and Surgery by Kruschinski, all obsolete, gone, finished! These types of promotions do not bother IHRT as we KNOW 100% that there will never be anymore victims of the "HOOK" or "KRUSCHINKI" as no matter who promotes Endogyn or Kru, patients will never again be able to secure a surgery with him! IMPOSSIBLE! HE IS FINISHED! (And he took a lot of others with him, thank goodness!)
* LOTS of hate and anger! (Directed at just about everyone, the REAL sad part is Karen's intense real hatred toward her own husband, sort of worth reading as life in the "Steward" house is like a soap opera!)
*Melissa has never been well and is having a subsequent bowel obstruction. (Of course, like everyone else out of Endogyn who complains of pain and problems as described in this book, is caused by something OTHER then adhesions! So, you men out there who have pain after Endogyn had better have your "ovary's" checked as it could be endo!)
*Karen led so many to Dr. Kruschinski and his hook with her bogus success story of Melissa. (IHRT: How many patients harvested to Kru by Karen are now saying, " NOW she TELLS US Melissa was never well after her surgery with Kru! Heck, Melissa never even LIKED Kru! He is a disgusting pig after all, perhaps Melissa does have some smarts?)
* Karen Steward gives medical advice without a license! (IHRT: She thinks she is an expert on ARD, when in fact she is no different then the Dr's she describes in her book as frauds and idiots!) * Karen discusses more private details about her daughters vagina and rectum then any victim of ARD would discuss about themselves, and then she spews it all over the Internet! ( IHRT see's this behavior as being indicative of " Munchhausen by Proxy" symptoms!)
* Promotions of Endogyn, and Surgery by Kruschinski, all obsolete, gone, finished! These types of promotions do not bother IHRT as we KNOW 100% that there will never be anymore victims of the "HOOK" or "KRUSCHINKI" as no matter who promotes Endogyn or Kru, patients will never again be able to secure a surgery with him! IMPOSSIBLE! HE IS FINISHED! (And he took a lot of others with him, thank goodness!)
IHRT's opinion is that this book was written to lure patients to a Surgery with Daniel Kruschinski thus, Karen Steward is part of his organized crime spree. IHRT has warned you all along!
There is definite proof of everything IHRT has claimed to be fact coming soon and in writing no less! ONLY ON IHRT!
Facts:
*There is no Endogy "LTD!" (Endogyn is an Internet web site only!)
*There is no Abdo-lift. (The manufacturer discontinued making the Abdo lift due to patient injury.
The following was of Interest to IHRT.....
**Karen sends you to Dr. Mercola's site, not Endogyn, to prove her point in this blog. Figures.FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims
**Is Karen paying the taxes on book sales?
**She still has not disclosed what she is doing with the proceeds of her zebra awareness pin....illegal!!!!
**Karen may have rationalized that the money should be for her own daughters future surgeries for all we know!
**This book is a total fraud and Karen Steward knows it!
**Look into Kruschinski claims to have perform only 200 surgeries this time with Spaygel and gassless surgery. Those numbers change and range from "40000 to 200" and with claims of 100% cures. (Except for Karen's daughter that is..ironic isn't it?
**There are about that many people on Endogyn's patient contact list who also claim to be "cured" by Kru, but how fast they all fade away from posting on his web site! Are they still well? ** Patients to Endogyn all played "Spraygel Russian Roulette" as many did not have it applied at all once Kru's sources dried up, but the patients didn't know this. (Some patients were "ignorant" and actually believed it when Kru posted or showed them pictures of surgery with Spraygel and told them it was THEM! )
(Remember folks, in these "state of the art facilities," where Kruschinski performed your surgery there was never the capactity to video the procedure.. "ONLY IN THE WORLD of ENDOGYN" could videos not be done. Hmmmm, are we now finding that Kru seems to have an endless supply of videos showing HIM performing surgery on others???
Yes, you were fools to accept this kind of bull, as it was simply a lie, a bold faced lie, and you knew to demand it but Kru knew you were fools, and he knew how to make his money, didn't he?
MOST of you never even had the Spraygel used in your proceedure, but you did pay for it, don't forget to thank Karen Steward, Helen Dynda and Lisa Gravens for helping you get to Endogyn and spend your money!
Helen Dynda USA 411 1st St N Hoffman, MN 56339-4505 Tel.: (320) 986-2898 email: mailto:eolddad66@runestone.net
Karen Steward -USA 931 Upper Denton Road, Weatherford, TX 760851 or 931 Upper Denton RoadWeatherford, Texas 76088 Office: (817)341-3000 Fax: (817)341-0235 email: kann@charter.net or karen@stewardbuilders.com
OR
email Karen's HUSBAND Lonnie, to discuss this book.
(He loves to talk about Karen at length) email: lonnie@stewardbuilders.com
Lisa Gravens USA Maumee, Ohio Home: (419) 893 5645 Cell (419) 346 7547 email: Lilylover5555@aol.com
FREE COPIES of Karen Steward's book......
Save your money buying the book as IHRT understand that Kruschinski has a closet full of them because they were all in English and not being credible he can't even give them away in Germany!
Hildesheimer Strasse 34–4030169
Hannover (Germany)
Phone: +49 180 36 36 496
Info - Phone: +49 180 / ENDOGYN (3636496)
Fax: +49 7000 / ENDOGYN (3636496)
eMail: Info@EndoGyn.com
Save your money buying the book as IHRT understand that Kruschinski has a closet full of them because they were all in English and not being credible he can't even give them away in Germany!
Hildesheimer Strasse 34–4030169
Hannover (Germany)
Phone: +49 180 36 36 496
Info - Phone: +49 180 / ENDOGYN (3636496)
Fax: +49 7000 / ENDOGYN (3636496)
eMail: Info@EndoGyn.com
IHRT has always stated the:
FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! ONLY ON IHRT!
STAY TUNED TO IHRT FOR RECENT NEWS OUT OF " ENDOGYN LTD!" HINT> IHRT' S patience and tenacity of reporting the facts on "Endogyn and Doc. Kruschinski" has paid off..BIG TIME! Soon to be released: "Court documents surrounding criminal activities of Daniel Kruschinski! "
IHRT wishes they could say the same for ENDOGYN, but we cannot as "Endogyn" as an entity never existed on anyhting but a web site.
Lies do not count as criminal activity, however a whole lot of others things associated with the practices Kruschinski and Katzer certainly do!IHRT as always reported 100% truth! Take a stroll back in the IHRT archives and re-read our posts with an open mind! For ARD patients to Kruschinski, consider how you are feeling today and what we tried to tell you about Kruschinski!
Where is King Kru today?
Where is Helen and Karen and Lisa today?
Where is Micheala Katzer today?
Where is Reich, Mettler, Goeshen today?
Where is Dippy Dr. Hutter today?
Try to schedule anything with any of them today!
Try to contact any of them in any facility listed in the Endogyn web site today!
The fact of the matter is that YOU CAN"T!
The fact of the matter is that IHRT knows where each one is..DO YOU?
FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! FACTS! ONLY on IHRT!
Karen Steward karen, steward United States Professional On The WebKaren Steward exploratory surgery pelvic organs, adhesions BusinessCard2 Karen Steward Weatherford Texas Karen Steward book illness Steward crippling pain Adhesion Related DisorderKaren Steward - LinkedInKaren Steward LinkedIn. LinkedInEndogyn, Kruschinski, Katzer, Mettler, Reich,Endo,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)