Replies

Guys, you've been had. Then again, so have lots of others.

This exam took place during a time that the doc was promoting himself as a wunderdoc for all sorts of brain injury, expectially stroks. He was ultimately dinged by the State of Florida for his bogus claims.

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/FinalOrders/03-17-03/DOH-03-0182.pdf

So here we have a bogus Nobel nomination, and a conviction by the State of Florida for bogus ads, claiming about the same time that Terri would respond to care.

If you're gonna make an argument then you've GOT to be careful about your sources. The Left wears pajamas, too.

Read the DOH report, thanks for posting it. It's a copy of a lawsuit brought by a patient. It appears that the patient lost the lawsuit but you have to read the whole thing to find that out. It also states (the court) that a substantial number of the doctor's patients have reported relief from his treatments. He's an 'alternative medicine' doctor, according to the documents,

Maybe the guy is a nut, but he did spend a lot of time with Terri Schiavo and his eyewitness is helpful unless we want to call him a liar or a fruitcake.

So here we have a bogus Nobel nomination, and a conviction by the State of Florida

True. The nomination was bogus. The "conviction" however, was reversed:

"STRINGER, Judge.
Dr. William Hammesfahr seeks review of a final order of the Board of Medicine ( the Board ) disciplining him for financial exploitation of a patient in violation of section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2002). Because the Board s determination is not supported by clear and convincing evidence, we reverse."
... "Based on evidence presented by Dr. Hammesfahr that several of his patients had actually improved after treatment, the ALJ also concluded that Dr. Hammesfahr had not engaged in false advertising concerning his treatment of strokes."
... "The patient in this case made an appointment with Dr. Hammesfahr, reviewed Dr. Hammesfahr's treatment programs, and enrolled in a three-day program for $3000.
... There is no evidence in the record that the overcharge was intentional. The overcharge could have been an administrative mistake by Dr. Hammesfahr's office or simply the result of the patient's early termination of the program. Either scenario does not support the trial court's finding of a violation of section 458.331(1)(n). At best, the facts in this case provide a basis for a civil contract dispute between the parties.
We reverse the final order of the Board disciplining Dr. Hammesfahr for financial exploitation of a patient in violation of section 458.331(1)(n)."

Appeal from the Department of Health.