AL-05 Candidates (Huntsville, Jackson: school, live, radio)

[Reactionary]

harry - I enjoy reading your posts, on this we'll have to disagree, unless I can persuade you

I despise 'mud-slinging' if the 'mud' is untrue, but relevant facts shouldn't be ignored just because they are distasteful.

[harry chickpea]

Fair enough. I still think the third party that I mentioned is a viable opposition candidate.

[HouseFullaBoys]

In my opinion the fact that Parker Griffith was under treating cancer patients so they would have to return again and again for treatment is a big deal. There was a time not so long ago that we wanted officials with character, who we could count on to do the right thing, not sure why that has recently gone out the window. I have only lived here for 5 years but know many who are lifelong residents. They have been mumbling about Parker Griffith and his love of power and playing God since he began seeking any office he could get many years ago. I 100% agree with Reactionary on this subject. I was never going to vote for him anyway based on his failure to represent us well in the state senate, ESPECIALLY when dealing with immigration. In my eyes a vote for Parker Griffith is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, she will have her way with him we will all be hung out to dry. I am also not going to vote for him so he can be in the pocket of Bud Cramer as he pursues his new title of Washington Lobbyist.

[zenjenn]

In my opinion the fact that Parker Griffith was under treating cancer patients so they would have to return again and again for treatment is a big deal.

Uhm, I am by no means president of the Parker Griffith fan club or anything, but I find this statement really hard to believe. I mean, basically you are saying Parker Griffith is an evil man, because you'd have to be evil to deliberately withhold life-saving treatment from cancer patients for the purpose of drumming up more business. Maybe he under-treated patients or something as a matter of incompetence in his profession, but specifically so that they'd give him more business as a doctor? That is just evil, period.

You better have some irrefutable evidence of his selfish, evil intent, because unless that is undeniably the truth that is a disgusting accusation to make of another human being.

I suspect more likely he bought into some holistic views of medicine or something and believed his patients could be adequately treated with less exposure to radiation, or something along those lines. Democrats are notoriously panic-stricken about radiation exposure. Otherwise we'd have more nuclear power plants.

[Reactionary]

zenjenn - on page 4 of the Dr. Brady Report, someone made a handwritten note: "more visits = more money". Whoever wrote that note came to the same conclusion as HouseFullaBoys. Just saying.

Dr. Brady's quote from the noted section: "There were several cases where there was obvious departure from the standard of care relative to radiation therapy not only in terms of fractionation but in terms of protraction and in terms of the total dose as well as the volume being treated in situations where more aggressive programs of management would have resulted in cure... in review of the treatment the best one can say is that it was treatment designed to ensure recurrence of the patient's disease process which indeed occurred..."

Dr. Greg Cotter, who was named as one of the oncologists in the report (he stayed for a year then left a year before the review - "for reasons not explained"), will be on Dale Jackson's show tomorrow morning WVNN FM92.5 AM770. I'm interested in what he has to say, since he has first-hand knowledge of the issue.

[HouseFullaBoys]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

zenjenn - on page 4 of the Dr. Brady Report, someone made a handwritten note: "more visits = more money". Whoever wrote that note came to the same conclusion as HouseFullaBoys. Just saying.

Dr. Brady's quote: "There were several cases where there was obvious departure from the standard of care relative to radiation therapy not only in terms of fractionation but in terms of protraction and in terms of the total dose as well as the volume being treated in situations where more aggressive programs of management would have resulted in cure... in review of the treatment the best one can say is that it was treatment designed to ensure recurrence of the patient's disease process which indeed occurred..."

Dr. Greg Cotter, who was named as one of the oncologists in the report (he stayed for a year then left a year before the review - "for reasons not explained"), will be on Dale jackson's show tomorrow morning WVNN FM92.5 AM770. I'm interested in what he has to say, since he has first-hand knowledge of the issue.

I was just searching for the report...thanks for saving me the time! Everyone will draw their own conclusions, too many people I know have shared their experiences with me to see Dr.Griffith as a good guy.

[VMH2507]

I was very interested in the documents posted by Reactionary. My immediate impression was the same as Zenjenn's, willing to give Griffith the benefit of the doubt as far as the reason for the inadequate treatment and hope that it is just because he was incompetent. However, my friend referenced earlier who was familiar with his relations with HH, as well as very medically savvy, is less forgiving. The interesting thing to me is that PG obviously knew the facts about his problem with HH but chose to blame it on HH's fear of competition. I guess he figured that he was safe since he had run for office before and the facts had not come out. As far as people buying into PG's assertion about competition, HH is a public hospital and therefore they would have less reason to fear competition than say a Crestwood. It is much more likely that HH's lawyers feared the rash of lawsuits if HH continued to have PG on their staff. People who say that this is not significant to PG's run for the Senate obviously don't expect honesty from their leaders. I for one do and I am an Independent.

[Reactionary]

The Huntsville Times reported on this story, Medical documents stir up congressional campaign:

A previously sealed 1987 peer review of Griffith's work, released to the media by Parker's campaign Tuesday, accuses Griffith of giving his patients too little medicine so that he could make more money on protracted treatment.

Listened to the WVNN Dale Jackson interview with Dr. Greg Cotter. Sounds like he is defending Dr. Griffith and throwing Dr. Olive under the bus. Since Griffith and Olive were reviewed together, that argument can be made, but Griffith was the Supervisor (Olive was fresh out of school).

Cotter also brought up the 'hired guns' - he says that Brady and Perez were hired to force Griffith out. He also says that the State Medical Board reviewed Griffith's work and found it acceptable. Jackson asked, "did Huntsville Hospital, Dr, Brady, Dr. Perez, and Dr. Scheider conspire against Griffith". Cotter replied "Yes". Cotter also said "Huntsville Hospital had an environment of corruption".

Cotter also said he had talked with Griffith prior to the interview.

Regardless of how this turns out, this information should be public. Sealing records to protect the Hospital and the doctors involved in order to cover up this mess from the public is wrong. Huntsville Hospital is a non-profit community hospital, if they are corrupt I want to know. If Dr. Griffith is lying, I want to know.

[harry chickpea]

More or less as I expected, and pretty consistent with my experience.

For those of you who demand honesty in politicians, I hate to burst your bubble but NO politician with any clout is ever completely honest. It simply is impossible to hold cards close to the chest and not delude constituents from time to time.

If you stop and consider, the ability to do so is as vital to politicians as to anyone with a security clearance. Someone with a security clearance might know of the presence of something highly dangerous to public health, and not say a word. A politician might know of something highly dangerous to business growth or public safety and not be able to speak about it. The reasons can vary; not enough funding to fix a dangerous road when there are other more pressing projects, a questionable risk, such as the use of a new insecticide, etc..

More commonly, people approach politicians with conflicting needs. A farmer might need to spread fertilizer on a field, and a new landowner from the encroaching urban area might want no odors. The politician has to placate to survive. The world of politicians is built on half-truths and special interest group support, as we are witnessing in the current national 700B bailout of one industry, so that people can continue to easily buy new cars on credit, or purchase homes more expensive than they can otherwise afford. The game goes on.

You also would be well advised to recognize that most elected politicians are type A personalities with strong egos. That combination is bound to upset many people, even more so when they espouse half-truths or change position based on political winds.

The framers of the Constitution made concessions when writing the document. I posit that the U.S. would be a much more powerful country if there was a pool of people with qualifications that served as Senators by drawn lot, rather than by a popular election. The House of Representatives was meant to serve as the reflection of the mood of the common people, but now with increased election spending, the Senate is turning that way as well.

[VMH2507]

I don't necessarily expect "complete honesty" from a politician, but I can distinguish between a lack of total honesty for the good of the country and an outright lie to cover his "political a__".