Dr. Alalouf - How can anyone possibly still trust this guy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dr. Alalouf took advantage of an autistic child. Maybe he's not a criminal but that's a criminal act. Being the friend of a friend who knows a victim of Dr. Alalouf, I'm not upset if assessments of him aren't 100% accurate. He knows what he did and so do the victims.

Many Guantanamo Bay inmates threaten to kill Americans but I guess that's ok as well. I love it when my tax dollars go to support rights of people that hate Americans. Also, many inmates support Bin Laden as well.

My point is this forum is getting too politically correct. I love the way Jeff responded to the lawyer with the joke of a letter threatening to sue DCUM. As far as the threat goes, it's not what you know but who you know so I wouldn't be too worried about it.

Let me get this straight. You see nothing wrong with anonymously calling someone a criminal who has not been charged, let along convicted, of a crime. You feel that because some inmates at Gitmo are guilty, all of them should be treated as such. Moreover, you resent that your tax dollars are being used to determine which are guilty and which are not? That's one warped sense of justice you have.

I wonder, how do you feel about your tax dollars being used to torture both the guilty and the innocent?

Do not misunderstand my reply to Alalouf's lawyer. The letter was an ill-timed and poorly conceived attempt to intimidate me and I treated it as such. But, if you think that my response was a license for you to cavalierly spread false information behind a cloak of anonymity, you are sadly mistaken. Given that you have said just about all that needs to be said on this topic, and your declared lack of concern for accuracy in the charges you post, I would hope that you will quickly conclude your participation in this thread. Frankly, you are simply creating sympathy for Dr. Alalouf at this point.


Back to my whole point of my participation on this topic, a friend of mine was affected by Dr. Alalouf. When I heard the slap on the wrist penalty he received and knowing that he'll be allowed to continue after serving his short time, it upsets me. My husband knows the victims better than I do. Sorry if the info isn't 100% accurate, but I didn't realize I'm in a court of law here.

I don't know of anyone that has sympathy for Dr. Alalouf after what he did. Your last line of your response is classic.

to me this debate between jeff and this PP needs to be removed from this thread. It's only "noise" that is taking away from this effective thread..

jeff If you can please remove this and the gitmo topics so we can get back to the one topic about Dr.Alalouf (and only about the DR)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
to me this debate between jeff and this PP needs to be removed from this thread. It's only "noise" that is taking away from this effective thread..

jeff If you can please remove this and the gitmo topics so we can get back to the one topic about Dr.Alalouf (and only about the DR)

I disagree. Dr. Alalouf is a named individual about whom quite a bit is known. Those who are posting critical messages are anonymous and nothing is known about them. The messages that you describe as "noise" provide important insight into the mindset of at least one of Dr. Alalouf's critics. The fact that the poster is not concerned about the accuracy of her statements is an important caveat for evaluating what she has to say about the Doctor.

Furthermore, what else can really be said about "the one topic about Dr. Alalouf" that hasn't already been said?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
to me this debate between jeff and this PP needs to be removed from this thread. It's only "noise" that is taking away from this effective thread..

jeff If you can please remove this and the gitmo topics so we can get back to the one topic about Dr.Alalouf (and only about the DR)

I disagree. Dr. Alalouf is a named individual about whom quite a bit is known. Those who are posting critical messages are anonymous and nothing is known about them. The messages that you describe as "noise" provide important insight into the mindset of at least one of Dr. Alalouf's critics. The fact that the poster is not concerned about the accuracy of her statements is an important caveat for evaluating what she has to say about the Doctor.

Furthermore, what else can really be said about "the one topic about Dr. Alalouf" that hasn't already been said?

Point Taken...

But it works both ways!

We have some insight into the mindset from the "noise" of the people supporting him too...That they don't care if he signed a consent form , "...doing unecessary dental treatment..." to an autistic child, as an admission of guilt..

The defense that they will watch him more closely now is just stupid. Why would you take a chance or want to put your child in that situation? There are plenty of other pediatric dentists who are qualified without ever having to have signed a consent form..

Maybe these dentists don't have the great playroom but at least you'll probaby trust this dentist more when he/she tells you your child has a cavity?

I don't know about anyone else but my insurance plan doesn't cover a second opinion and I'm with Blue cross/blue shield.

Shouldn't we be able to trust a dentist for god sakes?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
We have some insight into the mindset from the "noise" of the people supporting him too...That they don't care if he signed a consent form , "...doing unecessary dental treatment..." to an autistic child, as an admission of guilt..

They are well within their rights to do exactly that. Personally, I don't care if someone's dental plan consists of nothing more than tying a string to a door and slamming it to remove loose teeth. I have enough to worry about without telling people who to choose for their dentist.

Anonymous wrote:
Shouldn't we be able to trust a dentist for god sakes?

Yes, you should be able to do that. I strongly urge you to choose a dentist in whom you trust.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We have some insight into the mindset from the "noise" of the people supporting him too...That they don't care if he signed a consent form , "...doing unecessary dental treatment..." to an autistic child, as an admission of guilt..

They are well within their rights to do exactly that. Personally, I don't care if someone's dental plan consists of nothing more than tying a string to a door and slamming it to remove loose teeth. I have enough to worry about without telling people who to choose for their dentist.

Anonymous wrote:
Shouldn't we be able to trust a dentist for god sakes?

Yes, you should be able to do that. I strongly urge you to choose a dentist in whom you trust.

Jeff

I'm sorry this topic may be tiresome to you but you obviously weren't affected , directly or indirectly by this dentist...

It's great forums like this that allows people to openly discuss this "dead horse". But please keep in mind there is someone reading this right now that has never heard of Dr.Alalouf and what he has done.

Call me "crazy" or a crusader but this is just my opinion.

Please opine with pithy comments only.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It's great forums like this that allows people to openly discuss this "dead horse". But please keep in mind there is someone reading this right now that has never heard of Dr.Alalouf and what he has done.

The original thread has 240 responses and has been viewed nearly 20,000 times:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/12080.page

Anyone can get the 47 page report by requesting a copy from [e-mail]

Here is the article by Mary Otto on this topic:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202115.html

Newcomers have plenty of resources at their disposal. The problem I am having with this thread is that everything has been said, re-said, said again, re-said again, repeated, repeated again, and then said another time. For want of anything new to say, posters are delving into the deepest reaches of the Alalouf's private lives and, as a result, this situation is impacting me because I may well have to comply with legal demands to hand over information about people like you. I am forced to police this thread because even after I warned folks of potential legal ramifications, someone posted private information about the Alaloufs. I resent that I have to spend my time this way.

I have allowed this horse to be beat well past death, but eventually everything reaches the point of diminishing returns. We are quite beyond that point.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's great forums like this that allows people to openly discuss this "dead horse". But please keep in mind there is someone reading this right now that has never heard of Dr.Alalouf and what he has done.

The original thread has 240 responses and has been viewed nearly 20,000 times:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/12080.page

Anyone can get the 47 page report by requesting a copy from [e-mail]

Here is the article by Mary Otto on this topic:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202115.html

Newcomers have plenty of resources at their disposal. The problem I am having with this thread is that everything has been said, re-said, said again, re-said again, repeated, repeated again, and then said another time. For want of anything new to say, posters are delving into the deepest reaches of the Alalouf's private lives and, as a result, this situation is impacting me because I may well have to comply with legal demands to hand over information about people like you. I am forced to police this thread because even after I warned folks of potential legal ramifications, someone posted private information about the Alaloufs. I resent that I have to spend my time this way.

I have allowed this horse to be beat well past death, but eventually everything reaches the point of diminishing returns. We are quite beyond that point.

Jeff

I've reviewed the recent posts and dont see ANY private information that isn't public? Whether it be regarding someones job, or schools or anything like that. It's all available on google.

[ paragraph removed by admin ]

Another great solice for me is that I know that credible and ethical pediatric doctors are NEVER going to refer him business. As i've said before, the big practice i go took him off back when this happened and promised me they will not put his name back on the referral list

What hit me the hardest, being affected directly and/or indirectly was :

[ paragraph removed by admin ]

We have been at this a couple weeks now and glad we've gotten the publicity that we've gotten. Even the people supporting him can't take that away from me. Remember one can't sue over public information. They'll have sue Google first , since this is where i've gotten most of my information from , and we all know that's not gonna happen.

Again, I appreciate the ability to speak my mind on this great forum that you have created. People can take this information and still go to his practice. But I do believe that people have a right to know and base their decision on the information that is out there.

People who are tired of this subject don't have to click on this thread anymore so don't worry too much about this being a dead horse...

[jsteele]

I have edited the previous message because the poster still does not seem to understand what I thought was a pretty clear message. Please re-read this message I posted yesterday. If there is anything unclear, incoherent, or beyond your ability to understand, please let me know and I will further clarify:

I've just removed the text of the last message because the author apparently didn't get the message that Dr. Alalouf's wife and kids are off limits. I don't care if the information is true. I don't care if the information is positive. I don't care if the wife and kids just won the lottery. I don't want to read it here.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote: this situation is impacting me because I may well have to comply with legal demands to hand over information about people like you. I am forced to police this thread because even after I warned folks of potential legal ramifications, someone posted private information about the Alaloufs. I resent that I have to spend my time this way.

It sounds like the 'threatening letter' is working. That's sad.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I have edited the previous message because the poster still does not seem to understand what I thought was a pretty clear message. Please re-read this message I posted yesterday. If there is anything unclear, incoherent, or beyond your ability to understand, please let me know and I will further clarify:

I've just removed the text of the last message because the author apparently didn't get the message that Dr. Alalouf's wife and kids are off limits. I don't care if the information is true. I don't care if the information is positive. I don't care if the wife and kids just won the lottery. I don't want to read it here.

Jeff

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. But I think there is some relevance between the consent form he signed versus someone closely related running in autistic race when he took advantage of an autistic child.

I think it shows the cruelty of the people involved and has some validity to it.

But that will be the last mention of if from me...

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It sounds like the 'threatening letter' is working. That's sad.

Let me remind you that I deleted a thread because of inappropriate messages related to family members before I received the letter. If you feel that it is necessary to post information about the family, I invite you to go find a website that allows you to do that. Alternatively, you could stop hiding behind anonymous posts and put your name on a message. Its easy to be brave when you put nothing at risk.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It sounds like the 'threatening letter' is working. That's sad.

Let me remind you that I deleted a thread because of inappropriate messages related to family members before I received the letter. If you feel that it is necessary to post information about the family, I invite you to go find a website that allows you to do that. Alternatively, you could stop hiding behind anonymous posts and put your name on a message. Its easy to be brave when you put nothing at risk.

It's not a question of being "brave"....it's stating facts which I interpret as being relevant..

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It's not a question of being "brave"....it's stating facts which I interpret as being relevant..

Put your name on it and you can say whatever you want. This shouldn't be hard to understand. If you want to hide behind anonymous posts, then you are going to have to limit the discussion to the individual named in the Medical Association agreement. If you want to discuss other, possibly-related, individuals, you need to identify yourself. For all of the bluster in this thread, I doubt any of you have the commitment to go with your convictions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It sounds like the 'threatening letter' is working. That's sad.

Let me remind you that I deleted a thread because of inappropriate messages related to family members before I received the letter. If you feel that it is necessary to post information about the family, I invite you to go find a website that allows you to do that. Alternatively, you could stop hiding behind anonymous posts and put your name on a message. Its easy to be brave when you put nothing at risk.

I posted the quote at the top. I have only made one other post on the Alalouf thread -- that I had fraudulent dental work done on my teeth when I was in my 20s. I am not involved with the Alalouf thread in any other way. I did not post any information about the family and I know very little about this topic. (I can hardly even tell which side is trying to win points, based on the bizarre references -- Guantanamo, etc.) I was just noting that the letter from the attorny seems to be working. That's why they send them -- so people will stop doing whatever it is their clients want them to stop doing, at the threat of dealing with a legal mess. I think that's a common tactic and a sad one, and I hope you keep that in mind when dealing with this thread.

I personally think that if a dentist is found to have performed fraudulent work, they should be barred from pracisiting. As i said in my (one) earlier post, it's hard to imagine what a violation it is unless it happens to you, and it sounds like the person who keeps posting about this has first hand experience with dr. alalouf.

[cdavis]

Spent some time with my friend who is a Pediatric doctor and the one who seems really concerned about Dr.Alalouf will be glad to know that her practice is also not recommending him to their patients either.