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

[cdavis]

cdavis wrote: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.

Regarding some previous posts that I deem as relevant :

Dr.Alalouf signed a consent form in an admission of guilt on doing work that was unnecessary to an Autistic child.

I believe it is significant that his spouse ran in the Autism Speaks 5K back in July 2008.

How ironic is this? The nerve and unemotional feelings a person must have to be able to do something like this?

[Anonymous]

cdavis wrote:

cdavis wrote: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.

Regarding some previous posts that I deem as relevant :

Dr.Alalouf signed a consent form in an admission of guilt on doing work that was unnecessary to an Autistic child.

I believe it is significant that his spouse ran in the Autism Speaks 5K back in July 2008.

How ironic is this? The nerve and unemotional feelings a person must have to be able to do something like this?

I'm new to this forum and I confirmed the above story by using google and this makes me sick to my stomach..

How the medical board can allow him to still practice is beyond me...

Thanks for the info C.D.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm new to this forum and I confirmed the above story by using google and this makes me sick to my stomach..

How the medical board can allow him to still practice is beyond me...

Thanks for the info C.D.

No, you are not new. You are a liar and a sock puppet. It is time for you to move on with your life. Any additional messages by you on the topic of Dr. Alalouf will be deleted regardless of content.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm new to this forum and I confirmed the above story by using google and this makes me sick to my stomach..

How the medical board can allow him to still practice is beyond me...

Thanks for the info C.D.

No, you are not new. You are a liar and a sock puppet. It is time for you to move on with your life. Any additional messages by you on the topic of Dr. Alalouf will be deleted regardless of content.

Jeff

Just because this message came from the same server as mine DOES NOT mean it came from me. I introduced this to someone in my office and so yes, they were new to this forum. It's great forums like this that allows us to spread the word about certain issues.

It also validates my philosophy that as tiresome as this topic has become , people are still just finding out about this detnitst.

Again, I'm sorry it's tiresome and boring to you but many people have been affected , either directly or indirectly.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff

Just because this message came from the same server as mine DOES NOT mean it came from me. I introduced this to someone in my office and so yes, they were new to this forum. It's great forums like this that allows us to spread the word about certain issues.

It also validates my philosophy that as tiresome as this topic has become , people are still just finding out about this detnitst.

Again, I'm sorry it's tiresome and boring to you but many people have been affected , either directly or indirectly.

I'm not going to delete this message because, instead, I am going to use it to make a point. Apparently, you are not familiar with Internet technology. Messages in this forum do not come from a "server". Your company has configured its systems so that each end-user system is easily identifiable. Unless your colleague was sitting in your lap and using your computer to post, you are once again lying. The last several messages have all come from you (and your make-believe colleague). Nobody cares anymore about this other than you. Nobody is even bothering to read it anymore. As a result, this is simply causing me an unnecessary headache.

I have tried being nice about this, but I'm done playing. Any further posts about Dr. Alalouf from you or your invisible colleagues and I will be contacting [Company Name Redacted] network abuse personal to report your continued abuse of DCUM.

Note: this message was edited to remove the name of the poster's company after the poster agreed to discontinue posting in this thread.

[Anonymous]

OY!

[Anonymous]

OK PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE. THE BOARD DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE NEED FOR THE 18YR. OLD AUTISTIC BOY TO GO THE THE OR TO HAVE HIS CAVITIES FILLED. THEY DID AGREE WITH 16 OF THE CAVITIES. THAT MEANS THEY ONLY DISAGREED WITH 4 OF THE CAVITIES.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:OK PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE. THE BOARD DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE NEED FOR THE 18YR. OLD AUTISTIC BOY TO GO THE THE OR TO HAVE HIS CAVITIES FILLED. THEY DID AGREE WITH 16 OF THE CAVITIES. THAT MEANS THEY ONLY DISAGREED WITH 4 OF THE CAVITIES.

I just re-read the Post article and did not see that information (the article discusses numbers of teeth rather than cavities). I also checked the consent agreement and it also does not provide the information you are stating. Can you please cite your source for this info?

Also, you might want to contact a computer technician about your broken caps lock key.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE. THE BOARD DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE NEED FOR THE 18YR. OLD AUTISTIC BOY TO GO THE THE OR TO HAVE HIS CAVITIES FILLED. THEY DID AGREE WITH 16 OF THE CAVITIES. THAT MEANS THEY ONLY DISAGREED WITH 4 OF THE CAVITIES.

I just re-read the Post article and did not see that information (the article discusses numbers of teeth rather than cavities). I also checked the consent agreement and it also does not provide the information you are stating. Can you please cite your source for this info?

Also, you might want to contact a computer technician about your broken caps lock key.

I think they only disagreed with 2, read the Mary Otto article again... it had number...
and to those who say only friends and family are staying, they are wrong... we are neither and staying.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

I think they only disagreed with 2, read the Mary Otto article again... it had number...
and to those who say only friends and family are staying, they are wrong... we are neither and staying.

Both the Post and the consent agreement have numbers for teeth restored, not cavities treated. The consent agreement says two teeth didn't require treatment. It doesn't actually say that the others did require treatment, though that is implied. The primary issue in that case is that Alalouf only told the boy's mother that four teeth required restoration and he didn't get approval to treat the additional 18 teeth.

I'm not a dentist so I don't know if the number of cavities is the same as the number of teeth restored. But, I'd guess you could have more than one cavity in a single tooth. The consent agreement says that Alalouf treated approximately 20 teeth, but then provides a list of 22 teeth that were treated. Presumably, they consider 22 to be approximately 20, though I don't know why they simply couldn't be precise. It never discusses numbers of cavities. The "all caps" poster accounts for 20 cavities (four of which are disputed) which doesn't really correspond to anything in the consent agreement. I'm just wondering where the info came from.