[bonsai_spool]

> One of them nearly killed my mom, and another one was suspended due to malpractice and performing research fraud, but was given her license back

How does alleged research fraud affect someone’s ability to be a caregiver?

[heylook]

This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.

> According to the regulator for Ontario doctors, Jamal initially tried to place all the blame on her innocent research associate, almost ruining her career. She then tried to discredit her colleagues, claiming they had ulterior motives for questioning her results.

> When that didn’t work, they found Jamal tried to cover up her fraud: She illegally accessed patient records to destroy and change files, disposed of an old computer so investigators couldn’t examine it and even went into the Canadian Blood Services facility and changed freezer temperatures to damage blood and urine samples to mask her deception.

> And in March 2018, after admitting her misconduct before a disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Jamal was stripped of her medical license.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-despite-commit...

[bonsai_spool]

> This is the laziest, most egregious "WeLl AkShUaLlY!!!" comment I've seen in a little while. Like, really embarrassing.

And yet I haven't heard how this affects this person's ability to be an endocrinologist. Most of any job is routine busywork—and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public, we may never have a politician (or hospital chief) for the rest of humanity.

I am not saying that OP should love their endocrinologist. I am saying that all of this is a non sequitur.

[BrenBarn]

I think the simple answer is: a person who cannot be trusted cannot be trusted with your health.

[svnt]

People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.

Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.

I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.

[bonsai_spool]

> People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar.

> Someone who takes the hippocratic oath and then behaves in this manner is not fit to be a caregiver. Medical care is about more than technical competence.

> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for. Please go read about the origins of professional standards.

So much pathos—I was responding to an illogical set of statements.

People holding your current naive viewpoint is why we have professional societies with the power to remove licenses/disbar. - or maybe the evidence was insufficient?

> hippocratic oath

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

I don't see a comment about research standards. Let's stick to rationality here, please.

> I’d hate to see the state of the flattened world you seem to be arguing for.

Exactly the opposite of what I am asking.

> about the origins of professional standards.

The suggestions of your comment have been falling flat, so I'm not going to take this ill-defined assignment. If there are logical statements you wish to provide, please do.

---

Again, the OP did not say anything about malpractice. Had the OP done so, I would have made no comment.

The incidental prior incidence of alleged research fraud has no a priori bearing on why OP did not like this person.

[svnt]

It is not alleged research fraud. It is admitted fraud. The person is saying they sensed something wrong with her. Dishonest behavior is often discernible in advance if you know what to look for.

> Jamal now takes full responsibility and “regrets having exposed patients to the risk of harm by enrolling them in studies which had no value.”

There is no pathos in my comment. Your statement is literally naive.

[bonsai_spool]

> There is no pathos in my comment. Your statement is literally naive.

You may not understand what pathos means.

[brendoelfrendo]

> and if ethical purity is the requirement to hold a job that impacts the lives of the public

Yes!

[switchbak]

"all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.

[blobbers]

Haha; I have been trying to and then realized it was senseless. I actually wonder if this an ai designed to troll.

I could see someone using a prompt that says something like “make a poor argument based on ______ and repeatedly alter it in further comments. Use words from a list of logical fallacies incorrectly, make yourself sound credible.”

[bonsai_spool]

> "all of this is a non sequitur" ... I'm just speechless here. You're so completely off base there's not even any point arguing with you.

I am very specifically responding to the post I saw when I made my post.

Here is an example for the HN crowd.

"I really dislike my pointy-haired-boss project manager. He is unreasonable and terrible at management.

I learned that he was investigated at a previous job in computer science algorithmic research at a University—before he ever worked in industry—and ultimately found not liable for this. I am convinced that this is why I dislike my PHB"

---

> I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.

I can't respond to this comment—but if I am "arguing in bad faith" yet responding rationally, we truly cannot have a discussion.

[svnt]

I also replied above, so at risk of overextending myself in this thread: you are either too lacking in discernment to effectively have this conversation, or you are willfully arguing in bad faith. You are describing completely different scenarios.

[blobbers]

The twist ending is that this commenter IS Sophie Jamal, the endocrinologist in question!!!

[blobbers]

It would appear fairly clear: she tried to claim a therapy would help someone when it clearly would not and when confronted with this fact, actively tried to hide it. How on earth would you trust such a person to be your caregiver?

[bonsai_spool]

> It would appear fairly clear: she tried to claim a therapy would help someone when it clearly would not and when confronted with this fact, actively tried to hide it. How on earth would you trust such a person to be your caregiver?

Where did you derive any of this from what the OP said? He said there was an allegation of research conduct, and this is the statement to which I responded.

Almost all research uses artificial cell lines and animals—where did you get the idea that we were talking about 'a therapy would help someone'?

[blobbers]

The original commenter on the subject posted about the doctor Sophie Jamal. She is the person who published a paper suggested a therapy of Nitroglycerin to treat osteoporosis, is she not?

If a therapy that doesn't help is adopted then those that suffer from lack of care as a result are harmed.

[renewiltord]

Lol the idea that a scamster will only pull one scam in their life is such a gullible position hahaha.

[bonsai_spool]

> Lol the idea that a scamster will only pull one scam in their life is such a gullible position hahaha.

The doctor gets paid irrespective of their diagnosis—and I am yet to hear of a conspiracy where the doctor makes more money when their patients die.

[prmph]

But the doctor likely makes the same money for less effort that contributes to the patient dying, because it's hard to prove the link.

[bonsai_spool]

> But the doctor likely makes the same money for less effort that contributes to the patient dying, because it's hard to prove the link.

This makes no sense with how endocrinology works. And OP did not give any evidence of malpractice, so we have no reason to believe that less effort or patient risk regarding the practice of medicine was involved.

[blobbers]

Are you unable to engage with the full context of the situation? You repeatedly refer to the OP in your comments but there is a much larger context.

Simple logic, see if you can follow:

1. Sophie publishes flawed research (nitroglycerin for osteoporosis)

2. Sophie practices medicine and gives patients nitroglycerin for osteoporosis, with knowledge that her study is a lie. This causes harm to patients, because she knowingly gives them a therapy that doesn’t work. This is malpractice.

[bonsai_spool]

> Are you unable to engage with the full context of the situation?

Absolutely. I am also able to

- Not make attacks at the person making arguments.

- Not assume that the OP's mother received nitroglycerin

> Simple logic, see if you can follow:

You are assuming facts not in evidence, buddy.

> This is malpractice.

This is the absolute definition of a straw man.

[0x1ceb00da]

Malpractice can turn a simple case into a repeat customer. Infinite money glitch.

[blobbers]

Well you clearly haven't looked into the opioid crisis.

Wuh wuh.

[bonsai_spool]

> Well you clearly haven't looked into the opioid crisis.

> Wuh wuh.

Yes, I have not heard of the endocrinologists who perpetrated the opioid crisis in Canada.

[prmph]

You keep making weird arguments.

> I am yet to hear of a conspiracy where the doctor makes more money when their patients die.

This was a statement without qualifiers, and when someone has made a strong response to it, you now introduce the qualifier "endocrinologists...in canada"

[bonsai_spool]

Yes, the qualifier is introduced because… we are talking about a Canadian physician. Why would you mention a totally different nation?

[photon_lines]

She blamed the research fraud on her assistant when she was initially accused of it and denied all liabilities. She only admitted to it after they had her cornered. I had her as my endocrinologist for a while and I would not recommend her. Edit: if you want to have a care-taker who doesn't mind lying or is a psychopath, you do you but it's a no go for me.

[bonsai_spool]

> if you want to have a care-taker who doesn't mind lying or is a psychopath, you do you but it's a no go for me.

We've gone from accused of research fraud to psychopath.

My original point is that I don't see how the effort to produce new knowledge has any bearing on the appropriate management of diabetes/thyroid hormone.

[photon_lines]

So if your endocrinologist was found to have ran a concentration camp in the past, it would have no effect on your decision on whether you wanted to use them as your doctor? Running a concentration camp also has no bearing on a doctor's performance.

[bonsai_spool]

> So if your endocrinologist was found to have ran a concentration camp in the past, it would have no effect on your decision on whether you wanted to use them as your doctor? Running a concentration camp also has no bearing on a doctor's performance.

The story presented here is that OP disliked their mother's physician. There was no discussion of malpractice. Then, OP seems to have searched for information about the physician.

'Research misconduct' and murdering your fellow man are... not the same thing.

[blobbers]

Her behavior is completely psychopathic.

It has to do with the integrity and willingness of someone to tell the truth; if she's willing to destroy evidence to avoid criticism, what other types of mistakes is she willing to cover up when dealing with a patient?

This seems pretty obvious, how are you not understanding this? It isn't her effort to produce new knowledge, its her willingness to lie in the face of failure.

If a patient of hers dies or starts to decline, she could falsify cause. The list goes on. She is so far on the slippery slope that it is dangerous for her to care for anyone.

[bonsai_spool]

> if she's willing to destroy evidence to avoid criticism, > ts her willingness to lie in the face of failure.

This was not presented in the original post. My question was, why is alleged research misconduct a disqualification?

Also a panel of this person's peers decided she merited reinstatement.

> If a patient of hers dies or starts to decline, she could falsify cause.

Not something that is happening in outpatient endocrinology.

[blobbers]

There's plenty of chances for misdiagnosis in outpatient endocrinology. If she misses or delays a thyroid cancer diagnosis, or doesn't follow up with a patient at risk, etc, and then lies to cover it up.

I answered your question clearly: research misconduct and her reasoning for it indicates a willingness to lie that should not be allowed in a high trust field such as medicine. She has been banned from receiving Canadian federal funding for life. Her medical license was reinstated but it was a split vote (3-2) and widely criticized, but she is banned from conducting research and has to be monitored by a therapist.

I get that you like to argue, but you should probably learn to admit when you're wrong.

[bonsai_spool]

I can see you think you are correct and aren’t really engaging with my arguments- fine.

The original post gave no reasons for not liking the person, and then said she had this research thing. If someone looked into your past, what would they find?

I see your point about morality, but that has very little to do with essentially following algorithms all day.

Had the OP said something related to medicine vs feeling bad vibes, we’d be in a different position.

admit when you’re wrong - holy ad hominem, Batman

[pertymcpert]

You don’t see how being a dishonest person committing research fraud should disqualify you from treating patients?

[bonsai_spool]

> You don’t see how being a dishonest person committing research fraud should disqualify you from treating patients?

Correct. And, a panel of this person's peers found that, in fact, the alleged research fraud should not disqualify the person from treating patients.

[pertymcpert]

It certainly wasn’t unanimous. I generally hold my doctors to a higher ethical standard given they’re dealing with people’s lives. Maybe you have lower standards.