1p, July 7 2010, Abstract for Lancet. article was not accepted.
Important note; About 5% of The Lancet's publications are not scientific papers or peer reviewed papers. This is good as it offers different ideas and interests that are not main stream or interests not funded by whomever, such as what I have come to discover what I have become involved in that really is important for the lay person, doctors, and researchers; especially all the peer reviewed journals that had their research stolen and presented by an academic researcher paid to justify an illegal policy that is not needed, does nothing, and kills and maims naive bystanders.
The Lancet did respond and say no thank you and I may have better luck elsewhere. I asked who? The responded with, it would be inappropriate to direct me elsewhere. This is a moral or ethical decision to not direct me. But isn't the decision to not publish what is happening to me a decision that fails ethically? Isn't the theft of research more important. The theft of their own research. This theft could have been exposed worldwide as what not to do with protected research. I would have exposed the corruption surrounding diabetes and the phoney driver medical examinations. And, as G P are leaving this field of medicine, have long wait times for a visit, this could have exposed the wholeness of the demands upon G Ps by illegal gov't policies. this would have been the moral or ethical thing to do no matter how corrupt and extensive this corruption is. Yes, England also has these phoney demands upon the diabetic driver, which also compromises G P availability and care and G P personal health.
Too bad as The Lancet really had the opportunity to change the world by letting the world know about what this blog is about concerning diabetes; illegal policy, science that proves there is no difference between non-diabetic and type 2 diabetes, gov't corruption, academic researcher's theft and lies, lawyer's lies, falsifying legal documents, the failure of the BC human rights organization to protect rights and lives, etc, etc.
And if this is what is happening with diabetes then what is happening with the other one hundred medical conditions the BC Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles they say they are monitoring?
July 07, 2010
I have type 2 diabetes, since 1999, and challenged the diabetic drivers' policy as it seemed un - needed as the scientific research I was reading at that time, 1999 - 2003 conflicted with what was being told to me by the public and the gov't, which states that the diabetic driver needs to be medically managed as they are a Risk to society. I asked the gov't for the documents that were used to legally justify the policy, it replied that the policy is based upon the “view” that this is needed. This is not good enough in Canada nor does a “view” fulfill the civil servant's Oath of Office. This means the policy is illegal, as the demands of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 1, the British Columbia Human Rights Code, Section 8, and the B C Motor Vehicle Act, Sections 25, 29, and 92 require gov't to prove a real need with bona fide documents before intervening in the public life. Nothing was offered, that was 2002 - 04. This means all the civil servants forcing this illegal policy upon doctors, diabetics, and society are acting criminally.
As the policy is based upon the supposed consequences of diabetes I asked about the consequences of the intervention. We ask doctors about their intervention. Nothing was offered. I posed five questions about the intervention or “The Five Points of Engagement” that are worked through if one is to be successful in anything.
1. Is the 'need' for intervention really there? 2. Can the 'intervention' really do what it is alleged to be able to do? 3. What are the 'consequences of the intervention'? 4. Is there 'any Good'? 5. And 'where are we now'?
Again, nothing was offered.
My investigation into the policy's consequences has led to disturbing facts. When one takes the number of diabetic drivers forced to undergo the Driver Medical Examination, DME, and how many G Ps are needed to fulfill that demand, times the number of clients one G P would see in a year, it helps explain the long wait - times to see a G P; the Emerge Overcrowding, as Emerge doctors state fifty percent of those in Emerge should not be there; the Emerge Admissions, rather than through a G P or Specialist; ambulatory delivery problems; G Ps leaving the field of General Practice; the unexpected and unexplained inordinate number of deaths in Emerge due to Overcrowding that Emerge doctors hold NEWS interviews about, add the maiming due to Overcrowding; and the lack of funding for bona fide surgery needs, as tax dollars are now used to pay for the illegal, useless DME that is now paid for by tax dollars, due to my first Human Rights Discrimination Complaint in 2004 – 04. All those impacted by this illegal policy I'll give the name “naive bystander”, as that is what they really are. They go to Emerge for help and suffer the consequences of an illegal gov't policy and doctors are left to explain to the survivors that the death or maiming is unexpected and unexplained other than the Overcrowding, which unbeknownst to them is explainable. The Overcrowding is not a correlation but a direct consequence of the policy drain upon the G Ps.
I believe it fair to say that we like to make comparisons to things to help bring the new instance into focus. Think of Thalidomide. It was not so much the mother that suffered the consequences of the drug but the naïve bystander, the fetus.
And these consequences are for diabetes only, which is risen from five percent of society when I began this inquiry in 1999 to nine percent today. What does this say about the other one hundred or so medical conditions the gov't monitors for driving? What does this illegal demand upon our Universal Health Care system say about the future solvency of UHC systems? As this gov't demand is illegal it means it is not acknowledged as a demand upon the UHC, which means it is not funded properly and not managed correctly, the debit of doctors as well as finances are not really managed. If we do not acknowledge all demands upon the UHC system they will not survive the changes that are coming.
I believe the above is why the gov't, through an academic researcher, PhD, presented 189 scientific articles in my Human Rights discrimination complaint to legally justify the policy. However, they didn't have permission for Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, or Intent of Use. I challenged them about the legality. If I had not challenged them you would have read that the diabetic policy had been legalized through BC Human Rights Discrimination Complaint #5791. You don't read that. The policy is still illegal, the consequences continue, Emerge doctors still complain, and G Ps are leaving.
The “updated consequences” and attached letter explain the illegality of the policy, the consequences of the policy, and what has been done to procrastinate, to stonewall, in dealing with the illegal diabetic drivers policy and its consequences.
The Lancet did respond and say no thank you and I may have better luck elsewhere. I asked who? The responded with, it would be inappropriate to direct me elsewhere. This is a moral or ethical decision to not direct me. But isn't the decision to not publish what is happening to me a decision that fails ethically? Isn't the theft of research more important. The theft of their own research. This theft could have been exposed worldwide as what not to do with protected research. I would have exposed the corruption surrounding diabetes and the phoney driver medical examinations. And, as G P are leaving this field of medicine, have long wait times for a visit, this could have exposed the wholeness of the demands upon G Ps by illegal gov't policies. this would have been the moral or ethical thing to do no matter how corrupt and extensive this corruption is. Yes, England also has these phoney demands upon the diabetic driver, which also compromises G P availability and care and G P personal health.
Too bad as The Lancet really had the opportunity to change the world by letting the world know about what this blog is about concerning diabetes; illegal policy, science that proves there is no difference between non-diabetic and type 2 diabetes, gov't corruption, academic researcher's theft and lies, lawyer's lies, falsifying legal documents, the failure of the BC human rights organization to protect rights and lives, etc, etc.
And if this is what is happening with diabetes then what is happening with the other one hundred medical conditions the BC Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles they say they are monitoring?
July 07, 2010
I have type 2 diabetes, since 1999, and challenged the diabetic drivers' policy as it seemed un - needed as the scientific research I was reading at that time, 1999 - 2003 conflicted with what was being told to me by the public and the gov't, which states that the diabetic driver needs to be medically managed as they are a Risk to society. I asked the gov't for the documents that were used to legally justify the policy, it replied that the policy is based upon the “view” that this is needed. This is not good enough in Canada nor does a “view” fulfill the civil servant's Oath of Office. This means the policy is illegal, as the demands of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 1, the British Columbia Human Rights Code, Section 8, and the B C Motor Vehicle Act, Sections 25, 29, and 92 require gov't to prove a real need with bona fide documents before intervening in the public life. Nothing was offered, that was 2002 - 04. This means all the civil servants forcing this illegal policy upon doctors, diabetics, and society are acting criminally.
As the policy is based upon the supposed consequences of diabetes I asked about the consequences of the intervention. We ask doctors about their intervention. Nothing was offered. I posed five questions about the intervention or “The Five Points of Engagement” that are worked through if one is to be successful in anything.
1. Is the 'need' for intervention really there? 2. Can the 'intervention' really do what it is alleged to be able to do? 3. What are the 'consequences of the intervention'? 4. Is there 'any Good'? 5. And 'where are we now'?
Again, nothing was offered.
My investigation into the policy's consequences has led to disturbing facts. When one takes the number of diabetic drivers forced to undergo the Driver Medical Examination, DME, and how many G Ps are needed to fulfill that demand, times the number of clients one G P would see in a year, it helps explain the long wait - times to see a G P; the Emerge Overcrowding, as Emerge doctors state fifty percent of those in Emerge should not be there; the Emerge Admissions, rather than through a G P or Specialist; ambulatory delivery problems; G Ps leaving the field of General Practice; the unexpected and unexplained inordinate number of deaths in Emerge due to Overcrowding that Emerge doctors hold NEWS interviews about, add the maiming due to Overcrowding; and the lack of funding for bona fide surgery needs, as tax dollars are now used to pay for the illegal, useless DME that is now paid for by tax dollars, due to my first Human Rights Discrimination Complaint in 2004 – 04. All those impacted by this illegal policy I'll give the name “naive bystander”, as that is what they really are. They go to Emerge for help and suffer the consequences of an illegal gov't policy and doctors are left to explain to the survivors that the death or maiming is unexpected and unexplained other than the Overcrowding, which unbeknownst to them is explainable. The Overcrowding is not a correlation but a direct consequence of the policy drain upon the G Ps.
I believe it fair to say that we like to make comparisons to things to help bring the new instance into focus. Think of Thalidomide. It was not so much the mother that suffered the consequences of the drug but the naïve bystander, the fetus.
And these consequences are for diabetes only, which is risen from five percent of society when I began this inquiry in 1999 to nine percent today. What does this say about the other one hundred or so medical conditions the gov't monitors for driving? What does this illegal demand upon our Universal Health Care system say about the future solvency of UHC systems? As this gov't demand is illegal it means it is not acknowledged as a demand upon the UHC, which means it is not funded properly and not managed correctly, the debit of doctors as well as finances are not really managed. If we do not acknowledge all demands upon the UHC system they will not survive the changes that are coming.
I believe the above is why the gov't, through an academic researcher, PhD, presented 189 scientific articles in my Human Rights discrimination complaint to legally justify the policy. However, they didn't have permission for Copyright, Intellectual Property Rights, or Intent of Use. I challenged them about the legality. If I had not challenged them you would have read that the diabetic policy had been legalized through BC Human Rights Discrimination Complaint #5791. You don't read that. The policy is still illegal, the consequences continue, Emerge doctors still complain, and G Ps are leaving.
The “updated consequences” and attached letter explain the illegality of the policy, the consequences of the policy, and what has been done to procrastinate, to stonewall, in dealing with the illegal diabetic drivers policy and its consequences.
posted by type 2 at
2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home