Jump to content
Taking your time to properly punctuate, capitalize, etc. enables anyone reading any post to do so as efficiently as possible. I agree, partially, with your first thoughts; they read better like this:
"Does anyone realize that the agenda of modern western medicine is better living through chemistry? We are all being trained to take a pill for any problem."
Writing poorly tends to make people read "poorly." You need (and want?) people to read well to get your message across. There is little excuse for anyone with average intelligence or better (barring dyslexia, reading/writing disorders, etc.) to write poorly, "blog" or not (these are just posts). That's not "showing off"; that's simply writing effectively.
Re: "To come down on any one doctor is wrong." That's like saying "to come down on" any potential law-breaker is wrong. That's anarchistic, similar to: "Do away with all laws because enforcing them will cause someone, somewhere, some inconvenience." Society has laws and enforces them. Laws and their enforcement take an anti-social mob and make it into a society; laws make us responsible to ourselves and to each other! :)
If society is in fact trained by "Better Living Through Chemistry" (a variation of DuPont's former company slogan and the title of a recent film) to take drugs, then not enforcing laws regulating prescription of potentially fatal drugs might be anti-social or foolish.
Furthermore, to take some posts above out of the very narrow [-minded?] context in which they were apparently used: if any potential or alleged drug addict simply can "just say 'no'" (Nancy Reagan, circa 1981), then any doctor can also "just say 'no, I won't prescribe excessive or improper medication for you.'" But, too many doctors--who sometimes suffer from untreated co-dependency and regularly suffer from alcoholism and other forms of drug-addiction--do over-prescribe. Thus, we have laws--and means of enforcing those laws--to cope with those situations where drugs are over-prescribed. Blaming over-prescribing on the pressure from the pharmaceutical industry is like blaming anyone's use of alcohol or prescription drugs on the fact that those drugs are available.
Please note that I'm not alleging Joel Miller over-prescribed or didn't; I simply don't know. I don't give undue credulity to those "Candy Man"-type defamatory statements above. Nor do I give excessive weight to the "He's the greatest doc ever!" statements. Again, I don't know. They are, until substantiated with evidence in a court of law, either libel or speculation; either way, they're just unsubstantiated opinion.
One of the reasons behind my alleged pedantry is to help educate posters like "Better Living" above, so that they can make better decisions and add better statements to this ongoing commentary. If that offends you, that's your problem. Take issue with it (problems and issues are not synonymous!) as you choose to do so. :)
Have a nice day.
Re: "I find it interesting that the Craig Daily Press has hidden the original article... This is a perfect example of how ... impartial the agencies ... truly are."
Let's assume--at the inherent risk of splitting "assume" into 3 unconventional syllables that may apply to both of us--that you meant "partial" and not "impartial". A quotation, a date of publication, the byline--something to point those of us who may not have read it toward the original article--would help.
For some of you other posters: 5 exclamation points, 5-6 "dots" in an "ellipsis", may indicate that you're operating under the influence of EQ rather than IQ (see other "1x...2x..." posts). I'd suggest you take a deep breath, take a walk, do the dishes, "sleep on it," etc. before posting. Poorly written (run-on sentences, comma-spliced sentences, etc.), poorly capitalized ("i" instead of "I", sentence beginnings not-capitalized), poorly punctuated ("!!!!!", "........", etc.) diatribes won't help you convince anyone of consequence--of anything of substance--except that you're a poor writer!
In general, gov' agencies usually don't apologize for anything until they get a lot of bad press. In this situation, at this point--2012-04-30 ("yyyy-mm-dd"), 13:11:00 approx'--the only one getting any bad press is Dr. Miller, and a lot of it is from the comments of his alleged, "loyal" [?] patients or his alleged employees.
Again, I'd suggest "y'all back off," let the "wheels of justice" (or "injustice" if you're too upset to see past your narrow, "personal" view) "grind on" for a while. See if he is indicted; see if any of his staff are indicted; see what the DOJ says about seizing his records; and see whether a grand jury is impanelled, etc. before pontificating that "He's the best. He's done [this or that] better than anyone else." Etc. Otherwise, you may look very foolish later. (Or, you may not.)
My guess (speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, etc.) is that this situation is going to get much messier before it eventually gets cleaned up. My guess (spec' ...) is that it won't get cleaned up fast enough to make everybody, especially Dr. Miller, his patients, and his employees happy, regardless of how it gets cleaned up.
PS We're all persons. Everything we do is, therefore, "personal", whether it be at home or work, "private" or "professional", etc. What we really mean when we say, "Don't take it personally" is "Don't get emotionally involved," or especially, "Don't get emotionally overwrought!"
PPS Dr. Miller's vociferous posters/supporters would do well to re-read the above PS.
PPPS Most of my [chuckle]-s are directed at myself (I won't explain because it'd take too long, too many posts, too many 3000 char' limits), some at those of you--please see 3rd paragraph from the top--who can't [deleted] restrain yourselves and your posts, some just because when I'm tired I tend to laugh. However, I don't find the general situation the least bit funny!
Darn-->" “His employees will also BE under scrutiny”.
PS However--perfectionist that I am--which means I don't accept reality as much as it means I HATE making mistakes--mistakes can be capitalized upon, i.e., Dr. Miller' employees who've posted here may not post again, prematurely.
OOPS-->Re: "His employees will be also be under scrutiny!" should have read "His employees will also under scrutiny," of a kind I'd find oppressive if I knew about it. But, they may not know about it until they're given a grand jury summons, get arrested, etc., if such hypothetical, speculative, conjectured situations should occur (another defense against defamation).
Oops-->Re: "I don't take opiates." I also don't take phentermine, synthetic opiates, benzodiazepines, etc. Back over 3000 characters. :) Ahh, just "post another." :)
I've seen similar behavior, pro and con, re Dr. Told's TMH-privileges investigation 30+ years ago.
Re: Dr. Miller's employees: Until the DOJ decides to prosecute or not, you'd do best to SAY NOTHING! DOJ seizing files indicates that he's under serious scrutiny. His employees will be also be under scrutiny!
It's unlikely the DOJ/FBI screwed up ("Waco"? Probably NOT.). We're re-living the '60s, with societal-insanity re legalized-pot, increased hallucinogen use, drinking, etc. The drug industry cares most about profits; doctors are pressured to prescribe: "For every ill there is a pill ..." It's TOO easy to get drugs--in potentially fatal-combinations or fatal-quantities--over the Net without seeing a DO or MD. Moreover, doctors do have problems requiring intervention. With the spread of "Internet pharmacies", we're simply going to have more, not less, of these problems.
If you think MDs have no responsibility for Rx, "once an addict, always an addict ...", etc., please read, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phentermine, among others. If no doctors committed malpractice, none would have to pay high malpractice insurance! Let's hope you and no one close to you dies of an MD-prescribed, or Internet-enabled, overdose!
Doctors (and other intelligent people) often have EQs far lower than their IQs; acting on that EQ can cause problems. Well-meaning but otherwise immature or naive people support them.
I'm between doctors. The last told me I had bleeding in my liver, said "It's normal". The HELL it is! Only in a population of people with liver problems where the "average" person in that population has bleeding. However, having a high IQ (and an EQ too low ...), I stopped taking the 2 x 500 mg Tylenol tablets (twice daily), as it's known to cause liver damage. My life! My call!
This was one of many times this doc failed in his/her responsibility: referring me repeatedly to surgeons without sending adequate info, prescribing an inhaler for COPD--which she/he denies I have--to which I'm allergic, etc. I'm looking for a new doc.
It won't be Miller. Not with past allegations of having lost hospital privileges, having voluntarily surrendered them, etc. (Truth of the allegation is a defense against charges of defamation of character.)
PS I've spent half my life (50+) in recovery from drug-addiction, including addiction to alcohol, amphetamine/methamphetamine, codeine, etc. I don't take opiates. I don't take anything similar to them. I've had two abdominal surgeries and gotten by with Flexeril, Alleve, aspirin, and (formerly) Tylenol.
PPS "Sobriety" means many things: (1) not drinking, (2) drinking, but not getting drunk based on an attitude of (a) abstemiousness, of (b) temperance, etc. The later two are synonymous with "sobriety". So, some of you need to adopt a different attitude, possibly toward "recovery".
PPPS <3000 characters; ya gotta be kidding! Editted. :)
Last login: Monday, April 30, 2012
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.