From: Mark Probert on
mainframetech wrote:
>> He is probably an excellent nephrologist. However, it is his NY
>> practices I am addressing. Please read all my words before you knee jerk.
>
> Mark Probert,
> For a doctor that you have spent time running down as a 'quack',

Do read for comprehension. Revici is a quack.

> I'm surprised you would allow as how he might be an excellent
> nephrologist.

That is because you do not understand reasoned thought. I do not paint
with a broad brush, unless warranted. Hulda Clark, for example, is a
pure quack. From everything I know about her practices, nothing she does
is effective.

However, Kramer, being a nephrologist with privileges at decent
hospitals, has got to be doing something right. One of my best friends
is a nephrologist, and I know how hard he works. My friend G. is a
kidney transplant success story, after being on dialysis for many years.

My personal impression of him is that he is that and
> more. However, we must consider that the insurance companies are in
> business to avoid payments where possible.

We'll stick to medical insurance, if you don't mind. It is more relevant.

Medical insurance is more likely not to pay for treatment which has no
chance of successfully treating a patient, e.g. experimental treatment,
unproven treatments, etc.

Just look at their efforts
> after hurricane Katrina. If people use a treatment that works, but is
> somewhat out of the mainstream, the insurance company can avoid
> payment by saying the treatment is not accepted by the medical
> community.

Then it is the obligation of the person(s) promoting such treatment to
prove that it works. Examples of those who do not bother are Burzynzski,
Hulda Clark, etc.

The company uses all the gimmicks available to maximize
> profits for the investors, which is their one and only goal. It is of
> great use to them to have a nice mainstream medical community that
> lists what is good and bad in medicine, and I know from experience
> that even a treatment that proves itself to be efficacious will not be
> paid for where it can possibly be avoided.

And what treatment would that be? My family are heavy medical consumers,
expensive ones, and I have yet to see that.

> It is a sorry state of affairs that medicine in many countries has
> not come to their senses. While I do not generally think treatment in
> China is laudable, I do think they have used some common sense in one
> area. They put modern doctors familiar with current technology
> together with rural herbalists and local healers with only their
> unsanctioned training. They put them into a hospital and ordered
> everyone to give credence to each others methods. After a while, many
> new and useful treatrments came out of it, and a respect for the
> 'local healers' who had only been derided by the more technical types
> previously (sound familiar?).
>
> Chris
>