Publications

i lost track of how many t imes i’ve asked..people keep assuming i was being evalutaed for psychiatric treatment–ebven though i clearly indicate it was physical..and think its okahy for a med pro to force treatment for a physical condition on a comeptant adult

http://www.thedoctors.com/KnowledgeCenter/Publications/TheDoctorsAdvocate/CON_ID_000867

Medical Battery
by Leona Egeland Siadek, Vice President, Government Relations
Medical battery is defined as the intentional violation of a patient’s rights to direct his or her medical treatment. No injury or negligence is necessary for a finding of medical battery. Battery involves an unauthorized touching of another person. Medical battery occurs when a patient is treated without informed consent. Most commonly, battery charges are alleged where there is a dispute over whether the patient agreed to treatment or refused treatment. The agreement or refusal of treatment can be made directly with the patient, through an advance directive, or through a health care proxy.
Even when the treatment involves a life-saving procedure or when a seemingly small contact occurs, it can be deemed offensive or harmful. Laws governing medical battery vary from state to state in the same way that laws governing medical malpractice vary. The doctor does not mean to cause harm, but if the treatment is without consent, it is said to be imposed against the patient’s will.

This is NOT a MENTAL HEALTH issue like people keep assuming.

I was assumed to be incomeptant to make medical decisions because of cognitive ability/mental status…NOT being a danger to myself or others..

By law..medical pros (EMT/Nurse/DOC) needs to make a good faith attempt to verify competency…not 6 hours later like they did to me

This situation involves a chronic PHYSCIAL Condition that I was forced to undergo treatment fro (under the threat of being held hostage). They assumed I had an altered mental status..and did not evaluatre for 6 hours…when they later determined I was of sound mind and perfectly capable of refusing phsycal care for my chronicphysical condition
maybe people can relate to this

picture an adult with cerebral palsy–using a wheelchair and having distorted speech..yet person is a professional with a masters degree working in a professional field..

this person is forced to undergo treatment for a ’suspected stroke’ because the EMt and doctors assumed he was incompetant to refuse..until 6 hours later when they fianlly bothered to determine competance..and he wasn’t having a stroke..his condition was normal foir him
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS A PSYCH HOLD___GO BACK AND READ THE QUESTION….
I WAS TOLD I HAD TO CONSENT AND UNDER GO TREATMENT OR THEY WOULD KEEP ME THERE__HELD HOSTAGE__UNTIL I AGREED
this is not about a psych hold
This is NOT about a psych hold
thsi is NOT ABOUT A PSYCH HOLD

You said the last time you posted this question that it was a psyche hold. I would like you help you but you keep changing the story.

Yes, you can be held involuntarily on a psyche hold. However, you admitted the last time you posted this that you gave consent to treat. It doesn’t matter that you later changed your mind.

I know there’s a word for it, and I think it’s a long word too, but I can’t think of it – a more fitting and proper term for something that is being judged (usually a publication/ you know, when narrowing entries?) when referring to a "judged" Journal/Publication/Contest

rated, graded, critiqued

I’m confused as to the order that comes after the lead author. Sometimes the next "most important" author is listed second, other times I’ve seen the lab director or supervisor of a project listed last.

I’m interested primarily for the field of ecology.
To clarify, I’m submitting an abstract for a presentation and I’m not sure whether to include my supervisor–who is the second most important of 4 authors–second or last?

Generally the list starts with the person who did the most work on the project and progresses to the principle investigator in whose lab the work was done (assuming that the PI did not do the work). On really big projects involving many scientists, they might be listed in alphabetical order with a small asterisk or cross indicating people who contributed equally to the project as well as an indication to whom one writes for reprints.

Late in 2009 I got together with Richard Dawkins for a chat. Nice chap and some stimulating conversation.

Sorry about the poor audio. The leading reason were that I was primarily in Europe to do research, and when I left the US 2 months before this was not something that was seriously considered (I had VERY little AV kit with me) and that the discussion was all arranged on very short notice. Many thanks to umbulamidlun, smpaudio and stormfieldproduction for help with the audio, it was greatly appreciated.

Richard Dawkins is of course a big name in the defenders of science, publishing several best selling books and started a foundation that bears his name.
http://richarddawkins.net/

The foundation also has a youtube account.
http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet

Duration : 0:36:41

Read the rest of this entry »

Checkmarx research lab goal is to support the security community with exploration of new hacks, protection methods and education.
For all research lab publications please access: http://checkmarx.com/resources.aspx?id=1
You will be able to subscribe to complementary application security scanning at: www.cxcloud.com

Duration : 0:4:12

Read the rest of this entry »

More truthful Watchtowers and Awake magazines.

Duration : 0:1:39

Read the rest of this entry »

It appears stem cell research is undergoing a peer review process problem much like the one identified in climate research: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8490291.stm

Once again, it seems a small clique are trying to control what science is published and it’s disturbingly coincidental that the journal Nature is implicated (like climate science publications and peer review).

What is going on in science these days and how will this affect society?

Not really.

Stem cell research is carried out by a small group of specialists. It would be easy for them to go astray.

Climate research is carried out by thousands of scientists working on aspects of the science independently.

Scientists measuring temperatures are checked on by those measuring Arctic ice, oceanographers measuring sea level, biologists studying species migrations, etc.

It’s a vast interlocking web of data measured by completely different specialists, which makes it essentially self correcting. Not to mention impossible to "fake".

This is the reason why the vast majority of scientists agree. In scientific terms, climate research is ROBUST, very insensitive to errors in any one piece of it.

Evolutionists are Exposed and Vicious – http://www.warneveryone.com/evolutionists_exposed_vicious.htm
2. THE “APE-MEN” FALLACY
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/ape.htm
Considering the similarity of attacks by sharks and evolutionists, it does appear that they are desendents of these creatures. Iowa State University Denies Tenure to noted scientist who supports Intelligent Design because Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez co-authored the book, The Privileged Planet http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_university_denies_t.html

Breaking News: Iowa State Department Faculty Acknowledge ID Played Role in Gonzalez’s Tenure Denial – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/isu_department_faculty_acknowl.html

Science or Myth? Rodger Dehart A Documentation History of Events The Burlington-Edison Committee for Science Education http://www.scienceormyth.org/discoveryinstitute.html

They devour their own. Dr. Richard Steinberg, who holds two Ph. D.s in biology, was persecuted by bigoted Darwinists within the scientific community. As editor of “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington”, a scientific publication associated with the Smithsonian Institute, he was forced to step down as editor, had his office at the Smithsonian taken away, had to turn in his keys, had research money withheld and was even “shunned”. Closed minded, fellow scientists refused to respond if he spoke to them and wouldn’t even greet him in hallways. Why? Because he allowed an article, approved by a panel of scientists, to be published which promoted intelligent design rather than the religion of Darwinism. He didn’t write the article. He simply allowed it to be published. If these actions had been taken by Christians against an evolutionist it would have been a front page story! Sternberg, Smithsonian, Meyer, And The Paper That Started It All – http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command.

Are Atheists Hijacking Academic Freedom? Why some might consider Ben Stein’s new movie to be political dynamite. The theory of intelligent design (ID), holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. There are folks working overtime to deny scientists who disagree with the core claim of evolutionary theory the right to pursue the scientific evidence for intelligent design theory. But there is more to this than meets the eye. English Chick Cartoon Tracts – http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp Chick Publications P.O. Box 3500 Ontario, Calif. 91761-1019 (909) 987-0771 Ph. (909) 941-8128 Fax

Duration : 0:11:29

Read the rest of this entry »

A professional capabilities summary highlighting some of my work. Contact me for the complete presentation loaded with embedded PDFs of my work, as well as links to my work online.

I have over a decade of experience creating and implementing dynamic medical communication programs and publications for novel therapeutic products.

I have created and managed medical content development for print- and web-based CME and promotional educational programs for sales and speaker training initiatives.

Overall proficiencies include strategic planning, medical marketing, publication planning, KOL recruitment, and competitive intelligence.

Key therapeutic areas of expertise include cardiovascular/ thrombolytics, diabetes, CNS and psychiatry, hepatology (HCV/HIV), rheumatology, infectious disease, women’s health, urology and medical devices.

I also have a number of years experience in evaluating pre- and post-marketing adverse events for analysis and market research purposes.

Duration : 0:6:23

Read the rest of this entry »

Dans le cadre du congrès de l’ACFAS 2009, Jacques Barrette, le directeur du Centre de leadership scolaire de l’Université d’Ottawa, livre une présentation sur la gestion de carrière en milieu universitaire.

Duration : 0:10:33

Read the rest of this entry »