Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
A couple days ago I wrote an article called “The American Medical System is Broken…” The material for it, the original study called “Death by Medicine,” sat on the corner of my desk for months. The material was so shocking, even for a skeptic of the medical system like me, that I simply needed to digest it. I needed to think about what it all meant – for the study makes it crystal clear that organized medicine is the number one killer of Americans.
And number two, and number three…
“Facts” are undeniable. They speak louder than simple words. The old adage “actions speak louder than words,” is never more true, than in this indictment of the American Health Care System.
In legal jargon, what has happened with this report, is that the elusive, movable, medical definition of “Standard of Care,” has been set in concrete – with facts. Simply, it is the “Standard of Care” in the United States to allow 115,000 American citizens to die, within the system, of “bedsores”every year. It is the “Standard of Care” in the United States to allow 108,800 American citizens to die, within the system, of “malnutrition” every year. It is the “Standard of Care” in the United States to allow 199,000 American citizens to die, within the system, of “outpatient adverse reaction to drugs” every year. It is the “Standard of Care” in the United States to allow 88,000 American citizens to die, within the system, of “infection”every year.
And so on…
How can I define the information in this comprehensive report (Death by Medicine) as the definition of “Standard of Care?” For four reasons: (1) These people all died within the system. These weren’t people without access to medical care. These people had access to the American Medical System – and THAT is what killed them. (2) The problems described in the report range over many, many years. (3) The organized medical establishment has been aware of these issues for as many years. (4) Organized medicine has chosen to do NOTHING about the problems – therefore, they have accepted these problems as normal, and acceptable. Hence, the facts represented in “Death by Medicine” are, in fact, organized medicine’s recognized “Standard of Care.”
What does THIS definition of “Standard of Care” mean to “alternative” practitioners?
Who, in their right mind would tell their patients that “I operate my practice according to acceptable ‘Standard of Care’ guidelines. I let 105,000 of my patients die of ‘bedsores’ every year…”
“Alternative” practitioners, meaning those offering “alternatives” to the deadly American Medical System, should, from this moment on declare loudly “I practice OUTSIDE of the accepted “Standard of Care.’ None of my patients have adverse drug reactions, none of them die of malnutrition, none of them die from infections gotten from a hospital, none of my patients get unnecessary surgery or unnecessary procedures, and my patients have no idea what bedsores look like – they’re all out playing golf.”
Which Brings Me to Rick Vander Heyden’s Case in Wisconsin…
This is the first case, of an “alternative” practitioner, brought under, and reviewed by, the NEW management team under Wisconsin Department of Regulation & Licensing (DRL) Secretary Donsia Strong Hill. Strong Hill, you will remember, has declared publicly that “alternative practitioners will not be singled out…”. This case is NOT a leftover from the old management team – so the Wisconsin Health Freedom Movement is eager to see how it’s handled.
So far, Strong Hill, and her management team get an “F”. Vander Heyden is being prosecuted for using Homeopathy and EAV (Voll) in his practice. Period.
This case shows why the problems at DRL are getting worse, not better.
In a recent letter exchange between Legislators and Strong Hill, Strong Hill made certain claims about “how cases are handled” at DRL. When Vander Heyden demanded that Polewski provide him with evidence that he, Polewski, had followed Strong Hill’s guidelines – Polewski simply failed to respond. And, WILL NOT respond.
Why won’t Polewski respond? Simple. He did NOT follow Strong Hill’s guidelines. AT ALL… And, he never does…
Here is what’s important:
(1) Strong Hill, in her response letter to the legislators, said “Currently, complaints are initially screened by a panel made up by three Board members and a Division of Enforcement attorney to determine if investigation is warranted.” Polewski didn’t do this at all.
(2) Strong Hill, in her response letter to the legislators, said “Members of the Enforcement Staff work in conjunction with the (case) advisor in conducting the investigation.” There is NO case advisor…
(3) Strong Hill, in her response letter to the legislators, said “If the results of the investigation present probable cause to believe that a practitioner has engaged in unprofessional conduct of a nature that warrants imposition of discipline, informal settlement of the case is generally attempted.” Polewski never, ever, brought up the subject of “settlement.”
(4) Strong Hill, in her response letter to the legislators, said “The Medical Examining Board has defined ‘unprofessional conduct’ to include, among other things:
(a) any practice or conduct which tends to constitute a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of the public.
(b) offering, undertaking, or agreeing to treat or cure a disease or condition by secret means, method, device, or instrumentality.
(c) representing that a manifestly incurable disease or condition can be or will be permananently cured; or that a curable disease or condition can be cured within a stated time, if such is not the fact.
(d) knowingly making any false statement, written or oral, in practicing under any license, with fraudulent intent.
(e) failure to inform a patient about the availability of alternate, viable medical modes of treatment and about the benefits and risks of these treatments.”
Polewski charged Vander Heyden with “Unprofessional Conduct.” Naturally, Vander Heyden responded with a demand for Polewski to show, specifically, where this definition of alleged “unprofessional conduct” was violated. Polewski, simply, won’t respond. Why? Because NONE of these definitions were violated, at all, by Vander Heyden. Polewski is NOT using DRL’s definitions.
So, what is he using?
Polewski, we know, is a card-carrying, member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and in his membership agreement has sworn to uphold, and promote, the interests of the NCAHF. He’s using definitions made by failed MD Stephen Barrett, on his website“quackwatch.com,” the “quackbuster’s bible.”
Polewski is just being consistent, and loyal to his NCAHF membership.. And, is ignoring DRL policy.
(5) Polewski is NOT BRINGING IN ANY EXPERT WITNESSES to testify to the quality of Vander Heyden’s care. Nor is he offering any evidence that what Vander Heyden did was wrong, in any way. He is simply stating that EAV and Homeopathy are “unprofessional conduct.”and are not the “Standard of Care.”
(6) Now, when the hearing date looms, Polewski is demanding that his only witness, the “woman with pain,” not have to testify in person. Polewski is claiming that the woman “has environmental health problems, and is ‘allergic’ to too may things for her to testify in Madison.” Interesting legal position? You bet it is. For Polewski is prosecuting Vander Heyden because Vander Heyden was attempting to determine what things the woman was “allergic” to, and Polewski is questioning that the woman had any allergies at all. Polewski reverses his argument when it is convenient.
Polewski and the other DRL “quackbuster” prosecutor Arthur Thexton, so far, have attacked every non-drug cutting-edge practice they have found in the State of Wisconsin. Vander Heyden is the newest – and strangely enough, the oldest case.
Here’s what the Vander Heyden Case is All About…
Rick Vander Heyden is a biological dentist. Like others in biological dentistry, his interest is in the health problems that can come about because of problems in the mouth, He works by the adage “what happens in your mouth affects your whole body.” He specializes in the problems of certain patients being allergic to certain dental materials. He gets patients sent to him from all over the Midwest.
In 1988 a woman came to Vander Heyden complaining of headaches, and neck pain. She was referred to him. For the next eight years this person came to his office, sometimes five days a week, laying down in his waiting room, moaning – claiming intense headaches and begging Vander Heyden, in front of other patients and staff, to help her get rid of the pain. During this same period, court documents show, this woman saw over thirty other practitioners across the United States for a myriad of problems including four separate automobile accidents, and Psychiatric problems.
Towards the end, before Vander Heyden told her “he couldn’t help her any more,” the woman called him at home, moaning and begging for relief – and Vander Heyden, for forty of the fifty two weekends that year, went to his office and relieved the woman’s pain, using cranial sacral therapy – at no charge to the woman. Over the eight year period the woman had one toothache, after another, after another, and demanded removal of each tooth to relieve her pain. She had, previous to visiting Vander Heyden, already had all of her mercury fillings removed.
When Vander Heyden finally ran out of patience, and told the woman not to come into his office and “moan” in front of his other patients until she got treated, the woman sued him. The insurance company simply settled with her.
Now, Polewski has brought charges against Vander Heyden over this woman’s case – using the woman as his primary, and ONLY witness, besides his DRL Investigator. Not only that, but Polewski, in the twisted “quackbuster” style of thinking, doesn’t want the woman to have to testify in person, due, he says, to “her environmental illnesses.”
What we need to consider…
(1) Dentists, by definition, are health professionals. The yardstick by which we judge a health professional’s performance in the United States is a phrase called “Standard of Care.” Violating the “Standard of Care.” brings charges of “unprofessional conduct.” Individual State health examining Boards fight with this definition every day when trying to decide cases. The supposition “we the people” make, when we hear the term “outside of the Standard of Care” is that someone is operating BELOW the standard – and should, therefore, be disciplined.
But that’s not what’s happening.
The drug companies, “Big Pharma,” have spent an unimaginable fortune establishing drugs, more drugs, drugs on top of drugs, drugs to counteract drugs, drugs for kids, drugs for oldies, drugs for diseases nobody ever heard of before, drugs for minorities, drugs for druggies, drugs to get you going, drugs to slow you down… They even have Purple drugs.
They have worked very hard to establish the above as the REAL “Standard of Care.” Drugs.
Polewski is a “quackbuster.” He brags about his membership in the NCAHF. The “quackbusters,” we know were funded by 26 drug companies. The “quackbusters” label anything, and everything, that competes with the sale of massive amounts of drugs as “health fraud” and outside of the“Standard of Care.”
(2) What Polewski is trying to say, with the attack on Vander Heyden, is that Vander Heyden should not have relieved his patient’s pain (and he DID relieve it each, and every time) by using EAV to find the source of her mouth’s allergic reactions, he should not have used homeopathy to attempt to break up the allergic pattern, he should not have extracted the teeth the woman complained of severe pain over, and he should not have used cranial sacral therapy to stop the pain.
Polewski is saying that Vander Heyden should have sent the woman to a conventional doctor who could, and would, load her up with pain pills, and send her on her way home to a lifetime of acceptable “Standard of Care,” i.e.; bedsores, adverse drug reaction, unnecessary surgeries, malnutrition, unnecessary procedures, and the risk of medical errors. Not to mention the absolute cessation of everything normal in a life when you are constantly taking pain medication.
I’m kind of glad there are tens of thousands of Rick Vander Heydens operating outside of the accepted “Standard of Care” in America. Aren’t you?
Get the point?
(3) We have copies of court documents form other cases that show that neither Polewski, nor Thexton, get away with this kind of crappy case in from of either the two other Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), William black or John Schweitzer. Which is why, I guess, Polewski and Thexton maneuver their cases into Ruby Jefferson Moore’s Court. In a letter from Schweitzer to Polewski, over another case, Schweitzer, in a layman’s interpretations says “I’d feel a lot better about your presentations if you’d learn to bring EVIDENCE into my courtroom.” Ruby, I guess, is afraid that neither Polewski, nor Thexton, will take her out to dinner any more, if she talks harshly to them?
(4) So far, the Vander Heyden hearing is scheduled for June 8th and 9th in Madison. And, Ruby Jefferson Moore, who is being sued in Federal court for “due process” violations in the Suster case, is the ALJ. Moore, in the Suster case, refused to allow Suster to cross-examine witnesses, refused to allow him to present a Defense at all, and refused him the right to bring up Thexton’s actions in the case.
Tim Bolen – Consumer Advocate