7 ms·

This is 100% true, especially in Canada. I've had multiple encounters with doctors who were not fit for their positions and should not have been working as doct

This is 100% true, especially in Canada. I've had multiple encounters with doctors who were not fit for their positions and should not have been working as doctors. 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 and is back to work at the moment. Yes she is fully licensed and back to working as a regular MD in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Jamal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Jamal

bonsai_spool 10mo ago
> 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?
- photon_lines 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    > 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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        > 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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        > 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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
      You don’t see how being a dishonest person committing research fraud should disqualify you from treating patients?
      - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
        > 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 10mo ago
        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.
- renewiltord 10mo ago
  Lol the idea that a scamster will only pull one scam in their life is such a gullible position hahaha.
  - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
    > 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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        > 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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
- blobbers 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    > 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 10mo ago
      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.
- heylook 10mo ago
  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-committing-research-fraud-toronto-doc-gets-licence-back-after-2-years https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-despite-commit...
  - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
    > 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.
    - switchbak 10mo ago
      "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.
      - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
        > "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.

bonsai_spool 10mo ago

> 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?

photon_lines 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  > 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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      > 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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      > 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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
    You don’t see how being a dishonest person committing research fraud should disqualify you from treating patients?
    - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
      > 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 10mo ago
        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.
renewiltord 10mo ago
Lol the idea that a scamster will only pull one scam in their life is such a gullible position hahaha.
- bonsai_spool 10mo ago
  > 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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      > 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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
blobbers 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  > 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 10mo ago
    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.
heylook 10mo ago
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-committing-research-fraud-toronto-doc-gets-licence-back-after-2-years https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-despite-commit...
- bonsai_spool 10mo ago
  > 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.
  - switchbak 10mo ago
    "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.
    - bonsai_spool 10mo ago
      > "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.