5 ms·

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 corne

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.

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.