The Initial harvesting of Melissa Steward

-------Original Message------- From: Dr. Kruschinski Date: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:02:55 AM To: stew@cowtown.net Subject: Re: Melissa Steward Dear Karen, thank you for the reports and pictures. It looks like Melisa would have a lot of adhesions again as they came back after the frist surgery. In my opinion the only way to remove adhesions is GASLESS-laparoscopic adhesiolysis and SPRAYGEL as it shows excellent results. In this procedure we would remove all the endometriosis tissue that is occurent. The pictures show me enough so you don't have to change the video to CD. I'm sure I can help Mellisa to get adhesions and pain free, if you would like to come over to Germany with her. You can contact Lisa Graven for further informations about the trip and other topics. Regards Daniel
http://www.adhesions.org/forums/ADHESIONS.0211/0570.html

What Daniel Kruschinskis Peers think of him Endogyn ~ Don't go!

What do Daniel Kruschinski's peers think of him? Well in this vote to enter the PAX society....he is tied for dead last! The world his peers use to describe him best is FREAK

In the voting, Belgium and gynaecologists were probably over-represented. After consultation have been considered elected the 4 highest ranking surgeons and 5 gynaecologists. We wish to congratulate all the candidates and thank them for their support to PAX society by standing for election.

Overal statistics
Total PAX Society mailing list: 4289
Number allowed to vote: 3891 (i.e. those registered before monday 19th of march).
Number who did vote : 143, or 3.68 % of all allowed to vote.
Total number of surgeons: 2369
Total number of basic scientists: 115
Total number of gynaecologists 1540
Total number of others 265


Final results
Candidate: Result
Adamian Leila 65 45.5 % (submitted) 1.7 % (total)
Angioni Stefano 42 29.4 % (submitted) 1.1 % (total)
Audebert Alain 65 45.5 % (submitted) 1.7 % (total)
Bhanuprasad Buparelia 11 7.7 % (submitted) 0.3 % (total)
Canis Michel 101 70.6 % (submitted) 2.6 % (total)
Coccia Maria Elisabetta 41 28.7 % (submitted) 1.1 % (total)
Crowe Alison 45 31.5 % (submitted) 1.2 % (total)
D'Hoore Andre 51 35.7 % (submitted) 1.3 % (total)
Diamond Mike 66 46.2 % (submitted) 1.7 % (total)
Dizerega Gere 68 47.6 % (submitted) 1.7 % (total)
Gomel Victor 77 53.8 % (submitted) 2.0 % (total)
Jeekel Hans 51 35.7 % (submitted) 1.3 % (total)
Koh Charles 47 32.9 % (submitted) 1.2 % (total)
Koninckx Philippe 122 85.3 % (submitted) 3.1 % (total)
Kruschinski Daniel 32 22.4 % (submitted) 0.8 % (total)
Mais 37 25.9 % (submitted) 1.0 % (total)
Miserez Marc 56 39.2 % (submitted) 1.4 % (total)
McVeigh Enda 48 33.6 % (submitted) 1.2 % (total)
Molinas Roger 80 55.9 % (submitted) 2.1 % (total)
Shalev Eliez 32 22.4 % (submitted) 0.8 % (total)
Van Der Wat Johan 44 30.8 % (submitted) 1.1 % (total)
Van Goor Harry 41 28.7 % (submitted) 1.1 % (total)
Verguts Jasper 65 45.5 % (submitted) 1.7 % (total)

Press Release: Cochrane Collaboration statement on access to clinical trial data

The Cochrane Collaboration urges free access to all data from all clinical trials: end to selective reporting can reduce the risk of harm to patients

Oxford, UK (Oct. 5, 2011) - An international non-profit organisation committed to providing the most reliable evidence of the benefits and harms of healthcare interventions has released a statement calling for free access to all data from all clinical trials in order to provide the best care for patients globally.

In its statement, The Cochrane Collaboration argues that selective reporting of trial results occurs frequently, leading to exaggerated findings of the beneficial effects of healthcare interventions and to underestimates of their harms. As a consequence, many patients are unknowingly treated with interventions that have little or no effect and may be harmed unnecessarily.

Jeremy Grimshaw and Jonathan Craig are the Co-Chairs of The Cochrane Collaboration’s Steering Group. Craig says, “The Cochrane Collaboration strives to provide the best health evidence so patients can receive the best treatment. This evidence includes access to all clinical trial data and it should be mandatory that this information is freely available.”
The statement produced by the Collaboration calls for the following:

• all randomised clinical trials to be registered at their inception, before recruitment of the first participant;
• all data from all randomised clinical trials, including raw anonymised individual participant data that do not allow identification of individual participants, and the corresponding trial protocols to become publicly available free of charge and in easily accessible electronic formats;
• governments to consider introducing legislation requiring data from all trials to be made public within 12 months from the end of the randomised phase of the trial, in accordance with most international calls for data sharing; and
• governments to also consider the following measures: punitive measures for non-compliance; a requirement to continue to hold and make available core data indefinitely, or to pass such data to a central and accessible repository; and recognition that ownership of trial data should be shared among sponsors, investigators and trial participants.

Peter C Gøtzsche, Director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, awaits publication of his article on this very issue in the journal Trials (provisionally accepted). His article, “Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it,” argues that the distinction between publicly-funded and industry-funded research is an artificial and irrelevant one, as the interests of the patients must override commercial interests. Echoing the sentiments of the Collaboration, Gøtzsche feels calls for data sharing should not be restricted to publicly-funded research.

“The over-riding objective of healthcare research is to improve patient care and health policy. It is pretty clear that if commercial concerns lead to the withholding of data that are important for rational decision-making by doctors and patients, there is something fundamentally wrong. Selective reporting also violates the Declaration of Helsinki and the implicit contract with the trial participants,” says Gøtzsche.
The Collaboration will present this statement to its members at its 19^th Cochrane Colloquium, in Madrid, Spain at its Annual General Meeting on 20 October 2011.
The full text of the Collaboration’s statement can be found here.
Read an Editorial on this topic in The Cochrane Library here.

-30-

For more information:
North America
Jeremy Grimshaw
Co-Chair, Collaboration Steering Group
The Cochrane Collaboration
+1 613 798 5555 ext: 15231
jgrimshaw@ohri.ca
United Kingdom
David Tovey
Editor in Chief
The Cochrane Library
+44 20 7183 7503
dtovey@cochrane.org
Europe
Peter C Gøtzsche
Director
The Nordic Cochrane Centre
+45 3545 7112
+45 31 72 33 69 (mobile)
pcg@cochrane.dk
Australia
Jonathan Craig
Co-Chair, Collaboration Steering Group
The Cochrane Collaboration
+64 2 9845 3431
jonathan.craig@sydney.edu.au

About The Cochrane Collaboration:

The Cochrane Collaboration is the world's leading independent assessor of medical interventions and medical research. It is a not‐for‐profit organisation of more than 28,000 contributors from more than 100 countries and is dedicated to making up‐to‐date, accurate information about the effects of healthcare treatment readily available worldwide. Cochrane contributors evaluate and synthesise research in all aspects of health care by mining the existing research to find the best possible evidence and identify research gaps. This information is presented in systematic reviews, known as Cochrane Reviews, which are updated periodically to account for new evidence and are published online in The Cochrane Library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/). Cochrane Reviews help health providers, practitioners and patients make well‐informed decisions about health care. 

---

Copyright © The Cochrane Collaboration
Comments for improvement or correction are welcome.
Email: web@cochrane.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good ! Maybe this initiative can stop people from being lured by bogus studies like 

Daniel Kruschinski

Surg Technol Int. 2006;15:131-9.

Adhesiolysis in severe and reccurent cases of adhesions related disorder (ARD) - a novel approach utilizing lift (gasless) laparoscopy and SprayGel adhesion barrier.

Kruschinski D, Homburg S, D'Souza F, Campbell P, Reich H.

SourceInstitute for Endoscopic Gynecology (EndoGyn), Seligenstadt, Germany.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17029173
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kruschinski blatantly contradicts the statistics from this study, often, as why does he care...it is published and no one has bothered  to peered reviewed it...it gives this proven con man and Ponzi scheme creator credibility where none is deserved......Harry Reich had not a thing to do with it yet Karen Steward still continues to harvest unsuspecting patients to a back alley style adhesiolysis at Endogyn and controls patient information after the surgery with a nasty iron fist.
Beware, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. If Kruschinski was, as Karen Steward puts it...a world renowned surgeon and the best hope of being "adhesion free" his techniques would have been adopted by everyone and the whole world would be clamoring at his door....this is just not true.
Stay safe and do your homework and beware of anecdotal patient endorsements and bogus scientific studies!

Beware of words of hope like these designed to lure you to a place with no hope!

"Dr. Kruschinski is not only brilliant, talented, and well versed in the field of adhesions, he is perhaps the only surgeon in the entire world who can claim such an extended list of former adhesion sufferers." Karen Steward


http://karensteward.typepad.com/books_and_stuff/adhesions/page/2/

"Daniel Kruschinkski, a world renowned surgeon who is beating the odds against adhesion related disorder." Karen Steward

http://www.adhesionpain.net/2011/01/adhesions.html

The New KKK ~ Kruschinski, Katzer and Karen

Coming soon to IHRT!

There is indeed a new KKK and it is just as evil and dangerous as the sheet wearing one!

What do 2 communist dictators, a doctor and his mistress and a self proclaimed humorist from Weatherford TX have in common?

Well, a million Euros to start with and human harvesting and profiting from pain.

Stand by for this breaking news story as IHRT team members scour the globe to obtain all facts!

The real Kruschinski thru the "Wayback" Machine

Uber Con Man Kruschinski or should I say Kruczynski ?

What he published before all the nonesense of Abdolifts, deleterious side effects of carbon dioxide and teaching his Endogyn "patient advocates" to parrot mumbo jumbo...this is all he had in his initial website and the rest....what tempts you to have surgery with him is pure fiction.

Where are those 500 to 5000 opeartive reports and thier analysis????

Publications in Journals with  scientific advisory board

Kruczynski D, Glassmeyer M, Passia D, Haider SG und

Berthold G

"Modifizierter histochemischer Zinknachweis im Testis"

Fortschr. Fertil. 12; 577-586 (1984)

Kruczynski D, Passia D, Haider SG and Glassmeyer M
"Zink transport through residual bodies in the rat testis;
a histochemical study"
Andrologia 17(1); 98-103 (1985)

Kruczynski D und Passia D
"Die Schwermetallverteilung im menschlichen Ejakulat;
eine lichtmikroskopisch-histochemische Studie"
Acta histochem. 79; 187-192 (1986)

Kruczynski D, Greven H and Passia D
"Histochemical demonstration of Zinc in the spermatotheka of Salamandra salamandra (L.)"
Acta histochem. 79; 181-186 (1986)

Kruczynski D, Passia D und Berthold G
Lokalisation von Schwermetallen in menschlichen Spermien in Korrelation zu ihrer Motilität
GynComp 1; 13 (1991)

Ruptur eines Milzarterienaneurysmas intra partum
Weber G, Walgenbach S, Bauer H, Kruczinsky D, Merz E, Knapstein PG
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilk 54(10); 585-586 (1994)

Minimal invasive Therapie bei peritonealer Leiomyose
Kruczynski D, Merz E, Beck Th, Bahlmann F, Wilkens C, Weber G, Macchiella D, Knapstein PG
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilk 3; 181-183 (1994)

Kruczynski D, Bahlmann F, Schäfer U, Merz E, Knapstein PG
Argon Beam Koagulation in der Endoskopie
Arch Gynecol Obstet 256 (Suppl 1); (1994)

Kruczynski D, Casper F, Höckel M, Mitze M, Hawighorst S, Knapstein PG
Computergestützte Dokumentation radikaler Operationen in der Gynäkologie (Exenterationes und CORT)
Biomedical Journal 44, 15-17 (1995)

Kruczynski D, Schäffer U, Beck Th, Weikel W, Knapstein PG
Die intrafasziale Hysterektomie ("Cish"-Methode) - ist das Risiko eines Zervixstumpfkarzinoms kalkulierbar ?
Zentralbl. Gynäkol. 118; 1- 5 (1996)

Minimal invasive Chirurgie - Zukunftsaussichten
Knapstein PG, Bahlmann F, Beck T, Hawighorst S, Ibbels A, Kruczynski D, Schoenefuss G
Zentralbl Gynakol 118(2); 110-112 (1996)

Kruczynski D, Schäffer U, Knapstein PG
Gasless laparoscopy with conventional surgical instruments
Gynaecological Endoscopy 5; 277 - 281 (1996)

Merz E, Bahlmann F, Weber G, Macchiella D, Kruczynski D, Pollow K, Knapstein PG
Unruptured Tubal Pregnancy: Local Low-Dose Therapy with Methotrexate under Transvaginal Ultrasonographic Guidance
Gynecol Obstet Invest 41; 76-81 (1996)

Kruczynski D, Holmer B, Berger R, Jensen A
Die gaslose laparoskopische Hysterektomie mit konventionellen Instrumenten
Arch Gynecol Obstet 258 (Suppl 1) ; 6 (1996)

Kruschinski D, Schäffer U, Bahlmann F, Merz E, Weikel W, Knapstein PG
Stellenwert der Laparoskopie in der operativen Behandlung von Ovarialtumoren
(eine retrospektive 5-Jahres-Analyse);
wird an das Zentralblatt für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe eingereicht

Chapters of Books

Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with Conventional Surgical Instruments
In:Gasless Laparoscopy in General Surgery and Gynaecology

Diagnostic and Operative Procedures

Eds.: V. Paolucci and Beate Schaeff
Thieme, 1996, Seite 125 - 131

Slide Atlas of Gynaecological Endoscopy
FIGO Gynaecological Endoscopy Slide Series
Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique (FIGO)
Study Group on Assessment of New Technologies in Gynaecology
Parthenon-Publishing 1996

Publications in Journals without a scientific advisory board

"Laparoskotomie" - Die gaslose Laparoskopie mit konventionellen Instrumenten am Beispiel der Hysterektomie
Der Frauenarzt 2; 220-224 (1995)

Endoskopische Operationstechnik beim Dermoidtumor des Ovars
Der Frauenarzt 1; 132-134 (1996)

Das Pneumoperitoneum - der Kardinalfehler der Laparoskopie
Der Frauenarzt 41; 604 - 615 (2000)

Dr Kruschinski and Unsafe medical practices ~ IHRT blast from the past

Thursday, July 20, 2006
Dr. Daniel Kruschinski: The Dangerous Medical Issues
Let's focus on the most important issues, the medical issues regarding Dr. Daniel Kruschinski.

1. That he was dismissed from 5-10 surgical facilities before he opened his practice at the Emma Klinik.

2. That he did not request that his patients from the U.S. obtain (and FAX to him) standard pre-op testing before they left home, including EKG, routine blood work, Urinalysis, BP. Unsafe medical practice.

3. That he operated on some very ill and/or elderly patients, for lengthy surgeries, with no ICU at the Emma Klinik. The closest ICU to the Emma Klinik is in Frankfurt. Unsafe medical practice.

4. That he did not ask patients if they were taking pain meds, dosage, etc. Unsafe medical practice.

5. That he himself is very likely impaired by alcohol abuse/addiction, lack of emotional control, or both. He certainly revealed that he was impaired in some way in some of his e-mails and message board posts. Unsafe medical practice.

6. That he violated "Dr.-Patient Confidentiality" by sharing personal information about several of his patients, even posting some of that information on his message board, using their complete name. Unethical Medical Practice.

7. That he shared his personal problems with some patients and asked them for their assistance to bring him more patients. Unethical Medical Practice.

8. He's a gynocologist but works on men. Unsafe medical practice.

Posted by IHRT at 10:29 PM 5 comments:

Anonymous said...
Thank you for your summary of the MEDICAL issues regarding Dr. Daniel Kruschinski.

I agree with you.
His personal life is just that--- personal.

There are other issues, however, that are also important- those dealing with the BUSINESS aspect of his practice:

1. That he demanded that patients wire their money directly into his bank account.

2. That he intercepted e-mails written from prospective patients to other surgeons, and responded to them himself, attempting to set up a surgery to be done by him alone, although the pt. had requested a different surgeon. (Example: the pt. from Hawaii).

3. That he set up surgery dates, and demanded payment, for some patients before he had even seen their medical histories.
(this would be both a medical and a business issue).

July 20, 2006 11:28 PM
IHRT said...
Malignant narcissisim

1. THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR is skillfully deceptive and very convincing. Avoids accountability by diverting topics, dodging questions, and making up new lies, bluffs or threats when questioned. His memory is self serving as he denies past statements. Constant chaos and diverting from reality is their chosen environment.
Defense Strategy: Verify his words. Do not reveal anything about yourself - he'll use it against you. Head for the door when things don't add up. Don't ask him questions - you'll only be inviting more lies.

2. THE CONTRACT BREAKER agrees to anything then turns around and does the opposite. Marriage, Legal, Custody agreements, normal social/personal protocol are meaningless. This con artist will accuse you of being the contract breaker. Enjoys orchestrating legal action and playing the role of the 'poor me' victim.
Defense Strategy: Expect him to disregard any agreement. Have Plan B in place. Protect yourself financially and emotionally.

3. THE HIGH ROLLER Successfully plows and backstabs his way to the top. His family a disposable prop in his success facade. Is charismatic, eloquent and intelligent in his field, but often fakes abilities and credentials. Needs to have iron-fisted control, relying on his manipulation skills. Will ruthlessly support, exploit or target others in pursuit of his ever-changing agenda. Mercilessly abuses the power of his position. Uses treachery or terrorism to rule or govern. Potential problem or failure situations are delegated to others. A vindictive bully in the office with no social or personal conscience. Often suspicious and paranoid. Others may support him to further their own Mephistophelian objectives, but this wheeler-dealer leaves them holding the bag. Disappears quickly when consequences loom.
Defense Strategy: Keep your references and resume up to date. Don't get involved in anything illegal. Document thoroughly to protect yourself. Thwarting them may backlash with a cascade of retaliation. Be on the lookout and spot them running for office and vote them out. Educate yourself about corporate bullies

4. THE SEXUAL NARCISSIST is often hypersexual (male or female). Pornography, masturbation, incest are reported by his targets. Anything, anyone, young, old, male/female, are there for his gratification. This predator takes what is available. Can have a preference for 'sado-maso' sexuality. Often easily bored, he demands increasingly deviant stimulation. However, another behaviour exists, the one who withholds sex or emotional support.
Defense Strategy: Expect this type to try to degrade you. Get away from him. Expect him to tell lies about your sexuality to evade exposure of his own.

5. THE BLAME-GAME NARCISSIST never accepts responsibility. Blames others for his failures and circumstances. A master at projection.
Defense Strategy: Learn about projection. Don't take the bait when he blames you. He made the mess let him clean it up.

6. THE VIOLENT NARCISSIST is a wife-Beater, Murderer, Serial Killer, Stalker, Terrorist. Has a 'chip-on-his-shoulder' attitude. He lashes out and destroys or uses others (particularly women and children) as scapegoats for his aggression or revenge. He has poor impulse control. Fearless and guiltless, he shows bad judgement. He anticipates betrayal, humiliation or punishment, imagines rejection and will reject first to 'get it over with'. He will harass and push to make you pay attention to him and get a reaction. He will try to make you look out of control. Can become dangerous and unpredictable. Has no remorse or regard for the rights of others.
Defense Strategy: Don't antagonize or tip your hand you're leaving. Ask for help from the police and shelters.

7. THE CONTROLLER/MANIPULATOR pits people against each other. Keeps his allies and targets separated. Is verbally skillful at twisting words and actions. Is charismatic and usually gets his way. Often undermines our support network and discourages us from seeing our family and friends. Money is often his objective. Other people's money is even better. He is ruthless, demanding and cruel. This control-freak bully wants you pregnant, isolated and financially dependent on him. Appears pitiful, confused and in need of help. We rush in to help him with our finances, assets, and talents. We may be used as his proxy interacting with others on his behalf as he sets us up to take the fall or enjoys the performance he is directing.
Defense Strategy: Know the 'nature of the beast'. Facing his failure and consequences will be his best lesson. Be suspicious of his motives, and avoid involvement. Don't bail him out.

8. THE SUBSTANCE ABUSER Alcohol, drugs, you name it, this N does it. We see his over-indulgence in food, exercise or sex and his need for instant gratification. Will want you to do likewise.
Defense Strategy: Don't sink to his level. Say No.

9. OUR "SOUL MATE" is cunning and knows who to select and who to avoid. He will come on strong, sweep us off our feet. He seems to have the same values, interests, goals, philosophies, tastes, habits. He admires our intellect, ambition, honesty and sincerity. He wants to marry us quickly. He fakes integrity, appears helpful, comforting, generous in his 'idealization' of us phase. It never lasts. Eventually Jekyll turns into Hyde. His discarded victims suffer emotional and financial devastation. He will very much enjoy the double-dipping attention he gets by cheating. We end the relationship and salvage what we can, or we are discarded quickly as he attaches to a "new perfect soul mate". He is an opportunistic parasite. Our "Knight in Shining Armor" has become our nightmare. Our healing is lengthy.
Defense Strategy: Seek therapy. Learn about this disorder. Know the red flags of their behaviour, and "If he seems too good to be true..." Hide the hurt you feel. Never let him see it. Be watchful for the internet predator.

10. THE QUIET NARCISSIST is socially withdrawn, often dirty, unkempt. Odd thinking is observed. Used as a disguise to appear pitiful to obtain whatever he can,

11. THE SADIST is now the fully-unmasked malignant narcissist. His objective is watching us dangle as he inflicts emotional, financial, physical and verbal cruelty. His enjoyment is all too obvious. He'll be back for more. His pleasure is in getting away with taking other people's assets. His target: women, children, the elderly, anyone vulnerabie.
Defense Strategy: Accept the Jekyll/Hyde reality. Make a "No Contact' rule. Avoid him altogether. End any avenue of vulnerability. Don't allow thoughts of his past 'good guy' image to lessen the reality of his disorder.

12. THE RAGER flies off the handle for little or no provocation. Has a severely disproportionate overreaction. Childish tantrums. His rage can be intimidating. He wants control, attention and compliance. In our hurt and confusion we struggle to make things right. Any reaction is his payoff. He seeks both good or bad attention. Even our fear, crying, yelling, screaming, name calling, hatred are his objectives. If he can get attention by cruelty he will do so.
Defense Strategy: Manage your responses. Be fully independent. Don't take the bait of his verbal abuse. Expect emotional hurt. Volence is possible.

13. THE BRAINWASHER is very charismatic. He is able to manipulate others to obtain status, control, compliance, money, attention. Often found in religion and politics. He masterfully targets the naive, vulnerable, uneducated or mentally weak.
Defense Strategy. Learn about brainwashing techniques. Listen to your gut instinct. Avoid them.

14. THE RISK-TAKING THRILL-SEEKER never learns from his past follies and bad judgment. Poor impulse control is a hallmark.
Defense Strategy: Don't get involved. Use your own good judgement. Say No.

15. THE PARANOID NARCISSIST is suspicious of everything usually for no reason. Terrified of exposure and may be dangerous if threatened. Suddenly ends relationships if he anticipates exposure or abandonment.
Defense Strategy: Give him no reason to be suspicious of you. Let some things slide. Protect yourself if you anticipate violence.

16. THE IMAGE MAKER will flaunt his 'toys', his children, his wife, his credentials and accomplishments. Admiration, attention, even glances from others, our envy or our fear are his objective. He is never satisfied. We see his arrogance and haughty strut as he demands center stage. He will alter his mask at will to appear pitiful, inept, solicitous, concerned, or haughty and superior. Appears the the perfect father, husband, friend - to those outside his home.
Defense Strategy: Ignore his childlike behaviours. Know his payoff is getting attention, deceiving or abusing others. Provide him with 'supply' to avert problems.

17. THE EMOTIONAL VACUUM is the cruellest blow of all. We learn his lack of empathy. He has deceived us by his cunning ability to mimic human emotions. We are left numbed by the realization. It is incomprehensible and painful. We now remember times we saw his cold vacant eyes and when he showed odd reactions. Those closest to him become objectified and expendable.
Defense Strategy: Face the reality. They can deceive trained professionals.

18. THE SAINTLY NARCISSIST proclaims high moral standing. Accuses others of immorality. "Hang 'em high" he says about the murderer on the 6:00 news. This hypocrite lies, cheats, schemes, corrupts, abuses, deceives, controls, manipulates and torments while portraying himself of high morals.
Defense Strategy: Learn the red flags of behaviour. Be suspicious of people claiming high morals. Can be spotted at a church near you.

19. THE CALLING-CARD NARCISSIST forewarns his targets. Early in the relationship he may 'slip up' revealing his nature saying "You need to protect yourself around me" or "Watch out, you never know what I'm up to." We laugh along with him and misinterpret his words. Years later, coping with the devastation left behind, his victims recall the chilling warning.
Defense Strategy: Know the red flags and be suspicious of the intentions of others.

20. THE PENITENT NARCISSIST says "I've behaved horribly, I'll change, I love you, I'll go for therapy." Appears to 'come clean' admitting past abuse and asking forgiveness. Claims we are at fault and need to change too. The sincerity of his words and actions appear convincing. We learn his words are verbal hooks. He knows our vulnerabilities and what buttons to push. We question our judgement about his disorder. We can disregard "Fool me once..." We hope for change and minimize past abuse. With a successful retargeting attempt, this N will enjoy his second reign of terror even more if we allow him back in our lives.
Defense Strategy: Expect this. Self-impose a "No Contact" rule. Focus on the reality of his disorder. Journal past abusive behavior to remind yourself. Join a support group

Enjoy life free of the Narcissist!!
The male gender is used. Your abuser may well be female.

July 21, 2006 8:15 AM
Anonymous said...
Brief Summary of the UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR of some of Kru's former PATIENTS:

1. That they did not update their "pt. stories", to add that they had to go back for one or two or three more surgeries. Their "pt. stories" as posted are deceptive, because they indicate that the person was "given a new lease on life and made pain-free after the first trip to Germany.
(See Pt Stories on Adhesions.de)


2. That they gave incomplete information to people who called or e-mailed them, using the "patient contact" list on endogyn.de. In many cases, they did not tell the caller that they were not well, or that they had to go back for more surgery, or that they were planning to go back for more surgery.

3. That they neglected to tell prospective patients that they still had to take pain meds on a continuous basis, despite the fact that they were "adhesion-free and/or pain-free".

3. That they continued to support Kru with their messages on the message board, even when they directly observed (and told others) that he smelled of alcohol and displayed erratic behavior while he was seeing pts. in his office, next to the apts.

July 22, 2006 8:30 PM
IHRT said...
Flip the five bucks and call Emma Klinik and ask for yourself.
I am sure you can find the link on "Dan the Man's" website.
Isn't it a brief call to germany to see if this dismassal from there is true?
You can keep your head in the sand if you prefer. It's monday and he is stating that he can go to Emma Klinik anytime,,,ha.
If what we say then is true, would you not consider that a whopper of a tale to tell, especially to his devoted fans?

The price of one phone call..........

Dawn

July 24, 2006 5:25 PM
IHRT said...
Oh and I nominate Karen for the annual
"Maudlin Insipid Poetry Award"
She's a strong candidate and I think she can win!!!!
(Karen, go back to raving, it's what you do best)
DR

Meet the real Karen Steward

Nostrils flairing....mouth a roaring...this is Karen in her truest form.....exhibiting what appears to be more transference of very bad behaviors onto others.
Ever innocent, Karen always seems to be backing the wrong horse.
Meet her internet buddy Mayor Bob Habick :


Now here is the link to her newest crusade...another Kruschinski ilked bad boy she has taken to.
Former patients to endogyn may not want to read this as they might find the info she released about them very painful and callous. It would make anyone think twice before confiding in her we believe.
Marinette City Hall Mayham: Dear Donna, Meet Karen Steward, your husbands internet gal pal

ARDvark Blog Journal of Adhesion Related Disorder: Intraperitoneal adhesions-an ongoing challenge between biomedical engineering and the life sciences.

ARDvark Blog Journal of Adhesion Related Disorder: Intraperitoneal adhesions-an ongoing challenge between biomedical engineering and the life sciences.

Kruschinski and Karen Steward, authors of pure fiction

The Old CV
Short CV - Dr. Kruschinski
Pg.1 http://www.endogyn.de/index.php?seite=endogyn&sprache=en&a=EndoGyn&b=Physicians&c=DrKruschinski&d=lebenslauf



He started his specialization in gynecology and obstetrics at the gynecology clinic of the Franzkiskus-Hospital in Bielefeld under the direction of Prof. Dr. med. J.D. Schnell and continued at the gynecology clinic of Minden Hospital under Prof. Dr. med. H. Wagner. From 1990 to 1995, Dr. Kruschinski worked at the Clinic and Polyclinic for Obstetrics of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz under Prof. Dr. med. P.G. Knapstein. Here he established the center for minimally invasive surgery and was in charge of consulting hours for plastic surgery of the breast. After this, Dr. Kruschinski was attending physician at the University Gynecology Clinic at the Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum-Langendreer under Prof. Dr. med. A. Jensen. And then in February 1998 he established a surgical office in Alzey, focusing mainly on minimally invasive surgery. Following consultation here, he treated his patients in the Kirchheimbolanden Hospital. On admission as faculty member to the faculty of medicine of the private Witten / Herdecke University he was made head of the Institute for Endoscopic Gynecology. Doctors from EndoGyn® are now performing surgery in many locations and hospitals. The idea of franchsing endoscopic surgery is getting reality.


But hey.....this one sounds much better LOL!

Current position
Dr. Kruschinski is medical head of the Endoscopic Gynecology Centers in Germany. EndoGyn pursues the idea of so quasi-franchise system for a hospital structure with several operating centres in different locations. Novel and progressive treatment modalities of gynecological endoscopy are performed, such as gasless laparoscopy (laparoscopy without insufflation of CO2 gas, see also Special treatment), ultrasound, laser, Argon Beam Coagulation, Endometrial Laser Intrauterine Thermal Therapy (ELITT) and other surgical procedures. The main focus is on non-invasive and organ-preserving surgery, scientific research, training and development of new technologies.

Dr. Kruschinski has been actively involved in endoscopic gynecology for the past 18 years. He is renowned worldwide as a specialist for this discipline. He is one of the most frequently invited German speakers to international congresses, symposia, workshops and surgical tutorials (see also Lectures).

Gasless laparoscopy, which dispenses with insufflation of carbon dioxide (CO2) together with all its side effects (for more information see www.Lift-Laparoscopy.com), was developed by Dr. Kruschinski in the form in which it is being currently used at the EndoGyn centers. This surgical method is the result of a progressive attempt to render keyhole surgery yet more tolerable as a minimally invasive method and to eliminate the side effects associated with insufflation of CO2 (see www.Lift-Laparoscopy.org). It was also necessary to make this surgical technique simpler and more precise, and this was accomplished by using conventional instruments from open surgery (they are viewed as a standard thanks to having undergone development and modification for more than 30 years) and avoidance of overly long instruments used for gas laparoscopy (see www.Lift-Laparoscopy.org).

With some 20 years experience and more than 5000 operations behind him, Dr. Kruschinski has the greatest experience worldwide and, at international level, the highest number of operations with the technique of gasless Lift-laparoscopy. His input has led to development of different systems which today are being used in gasless Lift-Laparoscopy. Between 1996-1998 Dr. Kruschinski developed the system VarioLiftGyn. Since 1999 the system AbdoLift™ has been developed. In the meantime, Dr. Kruschinski has employed this system for more than 3000 operations.

Dr. Kruschinski has also introduced many innovative surgical techniques such as e.g. “Gasless laparoscopic hysterectomy with conventional instruments (GLaHCI)” or “Laparoscopic assisted mini-laparotomy (LaMiLa)”. The most innovative surgical technique is surgical laparoscopy using regional anesthesia. “Minimally Invasive Surgery under Minimally Invasive Anesthesia (MIS MIA)” is a gasless laparoscopic procedure that fully dispenses with a general anesthetic and is performed only under regional anesthesia, so that the side effects and pain following surgery are essentially reduced. In particular, in the immediate postsurgical phase side effects such as nausea and vomiting are completely eliminated. The patient is fully awake during the operation and if so desired she can follow the sequence of events during the operation or, alternatively, listen to a CD or watch a video film.

Dr. Kruschinski organizes international congresses, symposia and surgical workshops and tutorials worldwide on gasless Lift-laparoscopy. Under his direction at the EndoGyn® centers or in their native hospitals, gynecologists from the entire world are learning about these modern and progressive further developments in minimally invasive surgery.
http://www.drkruschinskie.mysurgeryplace.net/?page_id=6

But they just don't add up ........

Katzer owns over 465 domains! Endogyn saturation

It has been difficult to counteract Endogyn saturation with the truth from IHRT.
All these domains Katzer has purchased, Karen Steward harvesting patients, Mettler and Kruschinski being his same sneeky self have only temporarily buried the message of IHRT.

Before Karen Stewart has you believeing Endogyn's Kruschinski is a "world renown surgeon" and the only "Hope for those who suffer from adhesions" it would be wise to read through a few pages of IHRT and especially read or show a trusted medical professional "Dawn Rose Operative Reports".

Endogyn's science is bogus. Karens book is self published. The abdo-lift causes adhesions....course it does.....simple physics of hanging off a hook. Kruschinski uses carbon dioxide anyways to insufflate the abdomin to install his gruesome abdo-lift.....lift laparoscopy indeed.

If Kruschinskis diabolical surgical techniques actually improved someones condition then others would be practicing the same methods and get the same results probably better!!......but as Kru has said before....."Only In MY Hands" Ya right Kru....dream on..............


Tv008.com - Tv 008 - tv,television,fernsehen auf tv008.comNov 29, 2010 ... "Michaela Katzer" owns about465 other domains. Email Search: ... Michaela Katzer ( ) Fritz-Winter-Str. 12. Bergfeld Nie,38467 ...
whois.domaintools.com/tv008.com

Covidien Exposes Kruschinski for Experimental Operations

COVIDIEN EXPOSES DR. DANIEL KRUSCHINSKI - GERMANY - OF PERFORMING EXPERIMENTAL SURGICAL PROCEDURES ON UNSUSPECTING HUMANS - MANY PATIENTS WERE FROM THE UNITED STATES!
COVIDIEN is an International provider of medical devices, supplies and pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Daniel Marian Kruschinski - a Polish surgeon was performing experimental operations in Germany on patients from the United States......has stated on numourouse occasions that his father was in Auschwitz concentration camp during WWII and he learned his methods from him! "These adhesion patients are sufferring no matter what I do to them, so I do operations on them to see what outcomes will be!" said Kruschiski!
Self proclaimed: Head of the Endoscopic Gynecology Centers in Germany. EndoGyn pursues the idea of Novel and progressive treatment modalities of gynecological endoscopy. 18 years experience and more than 5000 operations behind him and with the greatest experience worldwide and, at international level.
http://www.endogyn.de/index.php?seite=endogyn&sprache=en&a=EndoGyn&b=Physicians&c=DrKruschinski

Based on information found in the "Covidien" web site relating to the study of
"Spraygel Adhesion Barrier".........
(No abstract on this "study" is shown in the Covidien web site, as none exist!)
"Kruschinski et al. (2006) evaluated the efficacy of SprayGel™ in preventing adhesion reformation during adhesiolysis procedures in patients with adhesion related disorder.
Following gas less laparoscopic adhesiolysis, 35 patients received SprayGel™ application, followed by a second-look laparoscopy at Day 7 and, in cases of continued pain, a third-look laparoscopy within 6 months after the initial surgery".........more:

Learn More About the SprayShield™Adhesion Barrier:
http://www.or-live.com/covidien/2457/index.cfmcmpid=SprayShieldPostcard
Bottom Right On This Page

Pre-Clinical Data
Page 4
Discussion
http://www.or-live.com/covidien/2457/Pre-clinical%20Data.pdf

********************************************

ALL of the patients from the United States were unsuspecting "human experiments" and were charged for their surgeries, paying Dr. Kruschinski thousands of US dollars.

A number of these patients returned for multiple operations by Dr. Kruschinski, and again paid thousands of dollars for what is now recognized as unauthorized medical experiments.
* Patients from the United States listed below in this post!

Not only did Dr. Kruschinski perform these operations without the knowledge of the German Medical Board, he violated the German Laws & Ethics governing "clinical trials" in that country, which parallels the "Ethics and Laws" of clinical studies in the USA! * See reports below in this post!

Kruschinski never related to his patients that his "Adhesiolysis procedures with Spraygel" was of an "experimental basis!"

Information in the "Covidein" web site also exposed that Dr. Kruschinski misrepresented the surgical results of his "gas less adhesiolysis procedure" to his patients, and the world by use of his Endogyn web site...........

Dr. Kruschnsi made claims that no re-formed or Denovo adhesion formation was found at second look procedures! He claimed over and over that patients undergoing his "gas less adhesiolysis procedure" were 100% adhesion free at SLL, he even validated those claims by posting pictures of the SLL results of these patients!"
(Never did Dr. Kruschinski offer to do video taping of his surgical procedures, though he claimed he had "state of the art" surgical equipment in his operating room! Desperate vulnerable adhesion patients from the USA bought that lie without question, and more then once for some of them!)
http://www.endogyn.de/index.php?seite=endogyn&sprache=en&a=Specialtreatments&b=Adhesions

Per the Covidien web site, Dr. Kruschinski makes the following claims...
(Again, no abstracts associated with these claims is avaiable, anywhere!)
"The reduction in the adhesion score at Day 7 was 89.8% (90.1% reduction in extent,
89.3% reduction in severity, and 89.9% reduction in grade).
Five patients (14.3%) had a third-look laparoscopy within 6months of the initial surgery, in which four cases of adhesion reformation were confirmed."

***************************************************

If YOU had an "Adhesiolysis with Spraygel" in Germany under the scalpel of Dr. Daniel Kruschinski, you were a human experiment, and if you are currently presenting with abdominal/pelvic pain, it is more then probable that your pain and suffering is from adhesions!
(Patients undergoing adhesiolysis in Germany with Kruschinski have been given every excuse in the book for recurring pain following his procedure, and many are once again buying his lies!)

Contacts for the "Germany Agencies" governing clinical trials in Germany, and "Government Agencies" currently involved with investigations of Dr. Daniel M. Kruschinski will be Posted Soon on IHRT!
Contact these agencies to report you experience with Dr. Kruschinski and to seek monetary compensation! YES! It is possible to recoup your money through the German courts by submitting your claim against Daniel Kruschinski's bankruptcy (insolvency) actions!!)
*See "Bankruptcy Report" on Dr. Kruschinski at this link....
http://eedogynde.blogspot.com/2009/02/too-al-vitim-of-dr-daniel-kruschinski.html

IHRT encourages all patients to Dr. Kruschinski to also contact "Covidien" and request the "Abstracts" from the "Endogyn SprayGel Adhesiolysis" clinical studies performed by Dr. Daniel Kruschinski as represented in the Covidien web site!
* See contacts below in this post!

(Keep in mind that the following clinical study, also found in the Covidein web site, was deemed invalid due to Mettler frauding a "mirror" report of this same study where she inflated numbers on her fraudulant report and attempted to submit that for fact! Mettler got caught, but at the same time, she rendered this real Abstract useless!! Shameful indeed Mettler! )
Mettler L, Audebert A, Lehmann-Willenbrock E, Schive-Peterhansl
K, Jacobs VR. A randomized, prospective, controlled,
multicenter clinical trial of a sprayable, site-specific adhesion
barrier system in patients undergoing myomectomy. Fertil
Steril. 2004 Aug;82(2):398-404.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COVIDIEN and the SPRAYSHIELD.........
It appears that Covidien is currently involved in a similar scam with Dr. Kruschinski as he makes claims in his web site that he is currently doing the clinical trials for Covidien and the SprayShield, though there is no record of these clinical trials being authorized by the German Government for Kruschinski to be involved in them.

Once again we see that Kruschinski is using unethical and "novel" means of sharing the "Covidien SprayShield" clinical trials results by using his web site "message board!"
It is all to apparent to IHRT that Daniel Kruschinski is once again perpetrating crimes against humanity as he performs "experimental" operations with the "Covidien SprayShield Adhesion Barrier" on unsuspecting vulnerable patients once again! Covidien appears to be sanctioning these studies by not denying their association with Endogyn and Dr. Daniel Kruschinski when contacted by IHRT representatives.
Endogyn aka Covidien.....
http://www.endogynserver.com/cgi-bin/210/cutecast.pl?session=JLfQfTdhRrPldW6vOIJSnuet0s&forum=2&thread=20815
http://www.endogynserver.com/cgi-bin/210/cutecast.pl?session=JLfQfTdhRrPldW6vOIJSnuet0s&forum=2&thread=20820
(A bit of gossip, but we all know that with any gossip, there is a bit of truth!: It has been brought to IHRT's attention that "Covidien" has a reputation of being rather "unscrupulous" and not above dealing in unethical and "novel" means to get the end means of their product on the world wide market!)

Vice President Investor Relations - Covidien
> Eric Kraus
http://www.covidien.com/
Contacts Eric Kraus
Coleman Lannum, CFA
Senior Vice President
Corporate Communications
Vice President Investor Relations
Tele: 508-261-8305 or 508-452-4343
Email: eric.kraus@covidien.com



Clinical Trials: The Growing Business Of Medical Experimentations ...

PMID: 12589461 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Differences between clinical trials according to the German law on pharmaceuticals (Arzneimittelgesetz) and trials according to the German law on medical products (Medizinproduktegesetz)]

Krummenauer F.
Institut für Medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik der Universität Mainz. krummi@imsd.uni-mainz.de

PURPOSE: Similar to the registration process for pharmaceutical agents, medical devices have to undergo standardized clinical evaluation before being marketed and used in routine therapy or diagnostics. However, conduction, submission, and reporting of such clinical evaluations to authorities has to follow the German law on medical products(Medizinproduktegesetz,MPG), which in some central aspects differs remarkably from the German law on pharmaceuticals (Arzneimittelgesetz,AMG).
METHODS: Relevant deviations of MPG requirements from those of the AMG are reviewed with particular emphasis on submission, conduction, and reporting of trials to the authorities in charge.
RESULTS: Whereas AMG-based trials focus on the proof of efficacy of pharmaceutical agents, the MPG demands instead proof of functionality of the medical devices; the MPG therefore concentrates more on technically satisfactory results in the context of function and patient safety. The aim of MPG trials is thus CE marking instead of AMG-based registration. However, this focus on functionality implies that medical devices need not necessarily be tested in a clinical trial--in some settings evidence-based evaluation alone will be sufficient. The decision on the necessity of a clinical trial is based mainly on the risk profile and invasive character of the device at hand.
CONCLUSIONS: The early consideration of differences between AMG and MPG concerning the role and conduction of clinical trials will remarkably increase the (CE) certification process's outcome quality and juridical validity.Publication Types:
· Comparative Study
· English Abstract

*****************************************************

Responsibilities of ethics committees]
Med Klin (Munich). 2000 May;95(1 Spec No):15-7.
von Bergmann K.
Abteilung für Klinische Pharmakologie der Medizinischen Fakultät, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.
Increasing numbers of clinical research projects are submitted to ethical committees (institutional review boards) for approval. New therapeutic developments have to be evaluated by these committees to protect patients/volunteers. Thus, the responsibility of ethical committees is increasing.
The "Nürnberger Kodex" and the "Declaration of Helsinki" are the background for these evaluations. According to the German drug law the physician is obligated by law to submit the protocol to such a committee. In addition, local state physician authorities require such a procedure.
Important considerations during the review process besides ethical aspects are the informed consent, which should be written in an understandable form, and the obligations of the insurance.
PMID: 10851843 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
· [Responsibilities of ethics committees] [Med Klin (Munich). 1999]
· [Recording and reporting adverse reactions in clinical trials. New legal provisions according to the 12th Law Amending the German Drug Law (AMG) and the Ordinance on GCP (GCP-V)] [Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2005]
· [Therapeutic trial, clinical research and therapeutic freedom--legal boundaries] [Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 1997]
· ReviewEthics committees and achievement of good clinical practice. [Therapie. 1996]
· ReviewEthical considerations. [Epilepsy Res Suppl. 1993]
****************************************************
National Institiute of Health - USA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6677881?dopt=
Abstract
Comparison of German and American law concerning clinical trials.
Deutsch E.
In German and American law, clinical trials require a positive benefit-risk evaluation, free and informed consent, medical and scientific qualification of the doctor, and a written research protocol. American law requires a written consent, which is free of undue influence, the subject being instructed that he is free to withdraw from the trial.
In German law, an orally given consent is sufficient for therapeutic trials. With minor or incompetent research subjects, informed consent to therapeutic clinical experimentation has to be given by their parents or guardians, the permissibility of which, in other trials, is controversial.
In non-therapeutic trials, blind studies, double-bind studies, and trials involving placebos, special attention has to be paid to the risk-benefit analysis and to informed consent, which in these cases, even in Germany, must be written.
The most outstanding feature of American law of clinical trial is that the experimentation is subject to previous control and approval by institutional review boards.
The most interesting difference in German law is the investigator's duty to effect an insurance against the risks of the research subject's death or invalidity.
****************************************************

http://www.clinicaltrialssearch.org/germany_clinical_trials.html
Germany Clinical Trials
Information presented on Clinical Trials Search isn't designed to be a substitute for proven medical advice, travels to or treatment with a real mD.
We are not doctors. Always consult your local Germany physician on conditions.
Clinical Trials Search.org is a website dedicated to listing clinical research studies in human subjects. Germany Clinical research trials and Germany health trials occur in hundreds of Germany localities. A clinical trial or clinical study is a research project with human volunteer subjects. Clinical drug trials and pharmaceutical clinical trials generally assess the effectiveness of new does drugs. The purpose of the studies / undertakings is to figure out particular human medical questions. Clinical trials are a popular manner for mDs, government agencies, and private sector companies to locate remedies for all kinds of conditions.
Germany Clinical Trials and other clinical trials permit volunteers to access medical treatment options before they are available to the masses.
Most times the human subjects receive treatment for without cost, and every now and again they are compensated for their time.
Test subjects oftentimes obtain the best healthcare available for their condition. Risks are a reality, nonetheless, and can include extra or frequent physician calls, health hazards (potentially life-threatening), and/or the treatment being ineffective.
Trials are federally regulated with rigorous guidelines to protect clinical trials patients.
*****************************************************


EndoGyn® Ltd.
Endoscopic Gynecology Centers Ltd.
Registered at Companies House for England and Wales
Company No. 5914561
Regional office: Wolfenbütteler Str. 41 D-38124 Braunschweig
Registered at district court Braunschweig HRB-Nr. 201524
Info - Phone: +49 180 /
ENDOGYN (3636496)
Fax: +49 7000 /
eMail: Info@EndoGyn.com
http://www.adhesions.de/index.php?seite=verw&sprache=en&x=Imprint


***************************************

USA Patients contacts Endogyn
http://www.endogyn.de/index.php?seite=endogyn&sprache=en&a=Patients-Info&b=Patientscontacts&c=International

(This list is in part as many patients to Endogyn refused to have thier names made public. All the patients listed here gave permission for their contact information to be accessed via the Internet.
IHRT does have the most conprehgensive list of patient who went to Europe for adhesiolysis procedures with SprayGel, as well as patients in the USA! )


Name ** eMail ** Telephone ** Location ** Which operation? ** Mulptiple trips to Endogyn for Surgery

Bauman, Dan
thesticher@defnet.com
+1 (419) 782-3944
Ohio
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 01.11.2003
****

Bolt, Frank
fcbolt@comcast.net
+1(856) 232-0653
Turnersville
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 11.02.2005
****

Bosso, Candy
candyajb@yahoo.com
+1 (847) 918 - 1470
Mundelein
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 11.03.2005
****

Cheryl Dixon
herbcheryl1@msn.com
+1 (503) 316-0575
Salem, Oregon
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 22.04.2005
****

Creacy, Lynn
mailto:lynn.creacy5@verizon.net%20
+1 972 394 9061
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 23.01.2004
****

Dawson Kay Belinda
bailey-teresa@hotmail.com
+1 (409) 579-4000
jasper, Texas
Adhesiolysis via gasless lift-laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 13.08.2007
****

** Dynda Helen - Multiple trips
hdynda77@runestone.net
+1 (320) 986-2898
Hofman
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGelDate: 18.07.2003
****

Falor, Barbara
bfalor@hughes.net
+1 (419) 822 9283
Ohio
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 03.12.2004
****

Fitzgeral Barbara
carnival@foodbooth.net
+1 (503) &"(-"=)=
Cornelius, Oregon
Adhesiolysis via gasless Lift-Laparoscopy with SprayGel AdhesionsDate: 21.02.2007
****

Foster, Terry and Kevin
KF106@aol.com
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 07.02.2003
Froelich, Barb and Leon
the_sticher@webtv.net
(419) 658-4022
****

Gasless laparoscopic adhesiolysis Date: 07.11.2003
Fuller, Barbara (Mother of an ARD sufferer)
barbiejo44@sbcglobal.net
+1 (209) 368-5536
Hughson
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparosocpyDate: 04.05.2005
****

Gibbs Effie
effiegibbs@hotmail.com
+1 (580) 263 0270
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 27.02.2006
****

** Graven, Lisa - Multple trips
lilylover5555@aol.com
+1 (419) 893 5645 (home)+1 (419) 346 7547 (cell phone)
Ohio
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 19.07.2002
****

** Grigg, Sally Multiple trips
howardcreekranch@mcn.org
+1 (707) 964-6725
California
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 25.10.2002
****

Haber, Connie
spincon58@hotmail.com
+1 (732) 870-8775+1 (732) 996-3900
New Jersey
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 08.08.2003
****

Hawkins-Bauman, Mic
thesticher@defnet.com
(419) 782-3944(508) 580-1592
Ohio
Gasless laparoscopic hysterectomyDate: 07.11.2003
****

Heimburg, Deborah
debbie@cmg.net
+1 (908) 236-9859
New Jersey
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 06.06.2003
****

Hiltz-Scerbo, Leiza Ann
leizahiltz@yahoo.com
+1 (207) 778 2331
Famington
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 11.02.2005
****

Jauernig Shiela
rsmj333@sbcglobal.net
+1 (979) 733-8041
Columbus Texas
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 03.06.2005
****

Kessler, Claudia and Rick
claudykessler@yahoo.com
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 29.07.2003
****

Kirk, Dusti
Dusti.Kirk@oscn.net
+1 (580) 497-2610
Cheyenne, OK
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 14.01.2005
****

Knouse Danita
danita.longo@yahoo.com
+1 (814) 371-5821
Dubois, PA 15801
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 07.09.2006
****

Lozich Kathy
mlozich@aol.com
+1 (972) 542 1117
Gasless laparoscopic adhesiolysisDate: 22.04.2005
****

Lyn Joyce and Raymond
rl08184@yahoo.com
+1 (863) 852-3625
New York
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 28.01.2005
****

Marshall, Liz
lizm6812@aol.com
+1 (253) 630-2088
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 06.06.2003
****

Mizrachi Yeali
skybluepink@adelphia.net
+1 (207) 433-5819
Bangor, Maine
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 06.12.2006
****

Porzuczek Marzena
marzena.p@comcast.net
+1 (815) 230 5253
Plainfield, IL
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 05.07.2006
****

Purcel Jaimie and Joe
purcell38@hotmail.com
+1 (520) 876-4205
Casa Grande, AZ 85222
Adhesioloyis via gasless laparoscopyDate: 08.04.2005
****

Rahlf Jennifer
3rahlfs@verizon.net
+1 (951) 694-5219
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 17.06.2005
****

Reed, Rebecca
oopsreed@aol.com
+1 (817) 423-1170
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 23.04.2004
****

Reed-McWilliams, Karen
Karen_McWilliams@allenisd.org
+1 (972) 442-7730
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 06.10.2003
****

Sampson Sandra
ssandym3@charter.net
+1 (918) 448-4088
Boston, MA
Adhesiolysis via gasless Lift-Laparoscopy with SprayGel AdhesionsDate: 17.01.2007
****

Scala-Paladino, Carmela
mela14@optonline.net
+1 (732) 851-5643
732-851-5643
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 02.07.2004
****

Schierloh Maureen
miata1121@cfl.rr.com
+1 (407) 443-2897
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 13.01.2006
****

Sheaks, Jill
jillsheaks@yahoo.com
+1 (419) 596-3345
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 26.03.2004
****

Simpson, Janice
Sybylsmom@msn.com
+1 (508) 580-1592
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 05.03.2004
****

Sowers Lyn Dell
lyndell_sowers@hotmail.com
+1 (717) 343-0131
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 02.12.2005
****

Steward Melissa
melissasgb@yahoo.com
Texas
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGel, AdhesionsDate: 10.04.2003
****

Steward, Karen (Mother of Melissa)
kann@charter.net
http://www.karensteward.typepad.com/
Texas
Gasless laparoscopic adhesiolysis
****

Thompson Bonnie
Keithinsrh@aol.com
+1 (732) 774 1158
Neptune
Adhesiolysis via gasless laparoscopy with SprayGelDate: 02.12.2005
****

STAY TUNED FOR THE LINKS TO GERMAN AGENCIES WHERE YOU CAN SEEK FACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS (FIASCOS)
OF
- DR. DANIEL M. KRUSCHINSKI -

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.