Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

911 CT, how many people?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What like a name badge? Or a tax return? give it a rest...

    So you have no evidence Bin Laden worked for the CIA? great so you'' retract the claim.

    And look who brings religion into it :rolleyes: I have no idea about the dancing Israelis religion, if they have one at all.

    It was Chertoff who had the dancing Israelis who were high-fiving each other as people were jumping from office windows released after they were refusing lie detector tests, at least one was "former" IDF counter-intelligence and Urban Moving Systems was a Mossad intelligence front.

    Where's your link between the "dancing jews" (dancing Jews being the common term with the alleged incident) ( oh and can you point out any non jewish members of Mossad?) as being the "Mossad handlers" to the "Al Qaeda cell" who carried out the attacks?


  • #53
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You said:



    Please support your claim of fraud against CAVITA through that link you have "read" or better yet save us both the hassle and admit you were wrong.


    Cracks knuckles.
    The alleged cause of NICO is not localized jaw infections but avascular osteonecrosis (AO). AO is a real condition that is most often associated with the head of the femur (hip bone) and is common among athletes who play contact sports such as football. It occurs because repeated trauma can damage the blood supply to areas such as the hip where there is not a lot of collateral circulation (the presence of many blood vessels that deliver to the same area). Because the jaw has abundant collateral circulation, most experts do not think that AO can occur there. The treatment of NICO is the same as for CO; invasive and irreversible surgeries and extractions.


    The research on NICO is very limited. No randomized controlled studies related to "NICO" diagnosis and treatment have been published. Bouquot is the main person diagnosing NICO in the tissue specimens obtained by dentists who claim that the condition exists. Several other pathologists who reviewed some of the same specimens have judged the tissue to be entirely normal. Some proponents locate their alleged problem areas with an unapproved ultrasound device called the Cavitat.


    The concepts of cavitational osteopathosis and NICO have been promoted by the American Academy of Biological Dentistry. Postgraduate seminars held by this organization have persuaded a number of dentists and some physicians to claim they can cure such conditions as arthritis, heart disease, and pain throughout the body by removing infected cavities within the patient's jawbones.


    Believers in "biological dentistry" have taken the treatment one step further. They claim that root-canal-treated teeth cause NICO as well as a host of other chronic systemic diseases. They recommend removing all root-canal-treated teeth and most of the other teeth close to the area where they say an infection exists. According to a 1994 article in Milwaukee Magazine, a group of local patients filed suit against several practitioners of this bizarre and dangerous therapy. These patients had many perfectly healthy teeth removed without any improvement in their diseases. (I don't know the outcome of the suits.)
    In September 2005, Aetna filed an amended counterclaim which described how Cavitat Medical Technologies and members of its board of scientific advisors taught dentists how to miscode insurance claims in order to get paid for diagnosing and treating NICO. The amended counterclaim listed 22 dentists who allegedly filed a total of 427 fraudulent claims for which they got paid. The list included 185 from Bouquot, 53 from Shen, 50 from Shankland, 29 from Glaros, and 17 from Jones. Aetna sought recovery of its legal costs plus punitive damages that could have amounted amount to millions of dollars. In January 2006, the judge ruled on narrow legal grounds that Aetna did not have standing to file its counterclaim. This ruling was unfair and could have been appealed. However, in April 2006, apparently pressured by the judge, Aetna paid $2.1 million rather than facing the uncertainty of a trial by jury in front of a hostile judge. The settlement terms were supposed to be confidential, but subsequent events disclosed the payment amount.
    Cavitat's suit did not achieve its primary purposes. Its backers hoped that the prospect of facing racketeering charges would intimidate dental licensing boards as well as other insurance companies, but no such effect is apparent. Although Cavitat's name has been replaced by a more general statement in Aetna's Clinical Policy Bulletin, the Cavitat device and NICO-associated practices still remain ineligible for insurance coverage and are unlikely to be covered by other companies. The latest (November 17, 2009) version of Aetna's policy states:
    1. Aetna considers surgery (including scraping of “infected cavities” and removal of root-canal-treated teeth) and/or any other therapies (e.g., rinsing the “cavity” with colloidal silver and administering chelation therapy and intravenous vitamin C) and bone graft replacement for the treatment of neuralgia inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) related diagnoses to be experimental and investigational because the clinical significance of this syndrome is in question.
    2. Aetna considers the use of devices to image the jawbones to diagnose NICO or NICO-type conditions experimental and investigational because there is no adequate scientific evidence to support their clinical value.
    Cavitat also got embroiled in a nasty battle over the disposition of the $2.1 million. In 2006, the attorney who filed the Aetna suit sued Cavitat for more than $500,000 in unpaid attorneys fees. Cavitat defaulted and then tried to block recovery of the money by filing for bankruptcy. Aetna, Cavitat, and the attorneys reached a settlement agreement under which Cavitat's original attorneys got most of what they asked for.
    Aetna does not appear to be interested in seeking recovery of the money it paid in response to miscoded claims. However, other insurance companies have been alerted to look more closely at claims submitted for NICO-related proceduresand more victims of NICO surgery have filed lawsuits against its practitioners. Cavitat Medical Technologies may also be facing other trouble. During a bankruptcy hearing, Cavitat President Bob Jones disclosed that in May 2006, his records had been seized by a "SWAT team raid from the FDA into our home and offices."
    ecause most insurance companies do not cover procedures related to "cavitational osteonecrosis," many of the dentists who diagnose NICO try to hide their activities by "miscoding" or deliberately misstating facts of a case. Common ploys to "hide" NICO surgery are to state that the patient has osteomyelitis (bone infection), cysts, granulomas, or another pathology near the tip of the tooth root. These diagnoses would not normally stand out for scrutiny because periapical cysts and granulomas are fairly common. To detect miscoding, it would be necessary to compare a particular dentist's diagnostic patterns with what would be expected from a dentist who practices appropriately. Osteomyelitis near tooth sockets is not common. Deceptive dentists typically list routine (and often unnecessary) extractions as "surgical extractions" (thus charging more) and then scrape out bone from the socket and tooth roots, claiming that an "infection" or osteomyelitis exists. NICO advocates may also remove every tooth with a root canal treatment, regardless of success or failure of the treatment. They claim that root canal treated teeth are "toxic" and cause "cavitations," without any valid biological basis or clinical data to support these assertions.
    Insurance carriers would be wise to require a pre-extraction diagnosis for every extracted tooth, and periodically require pre-extraction x-ray films on a random basis. In cases of suspected fraud, pretreatment x-ray films should always be reviewed. Review of the diagnoses submitted would help uncover fraud cases. Other claim patterns that should trigger an examination for fraudulent treatment include:
    Multiple extractions on the same day in the same quadrant, coupled with diagnoses of cavitations, osteomyelitis, or other bony pathology
    • Any diagnosis of "NICO"
    • Removal of root canal-treated teeth without cause
    • Multiple bone biopsies
    • Bone biopsies coupled with extractions
    • Osteomyelitis without months of documented antibiotic therapy
    • Multiple bone surgeries done by general dentists.




    http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cavitation.html

    Shall I go on?


  • #54
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    squod wrote: »
    I lol'ed.

    The claim that Bin Laden worked for the CIA is a corner stone of the conspiracy about the attacks.

    The substantiated argument is non existent. Why would Bin Laden work for the CIA what would he gain from this arrangement? He was independently wealthy, he didn't need the money.


  • #55
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Cracks knuckles.












    http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cavitation.html

    Shall I go on?

    :D

    All that stuff was in the link I posted, yeah? The on that you referred to?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69091930&postcount=32
    Actually don't bother responding if you don't mind. I'm not interested.


  • #56
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,076 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The claim that Bin Laden worked for the CIA is a corner stone of the conspiracy about the attacks.

    The substantiated argument is non existent. Why would Bin Laden work for the CIA what would he gain from this arrangement? He was independently wealthy, he didn't need the money.

    'worked for' might be a bit much. How about 'had a mutual contact with'? It's no secret that other members of the Bin Laden family had interests in the US and vice versa, is it?


  • #57
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    :D

    All that stuff was in the link I posted, yeah? The on that you referred to?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69091930&postcount=32


    No none of that stuff was in the post you linked to.

    Actually don't bother responding if you don't mind. I'm not interested.

    I'll take that as admission from you that you give up and admit I'm right.


  • #58
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The claim that Bin Laden worked for the CIA is a corner stone of the conspiracy about the attacks.

    The substantiated argument is non existent. Why would Bin Laden work for the CIA what would he gain from this arrangement? He was independently wealthy, he didn't need the money.

    Why in your humble opinion did Jacob Rothschild work for MI5?


  • #59
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    My name is URL wrote: »
    'worked for' might be a bit much. How about 'had a mutual contact with'?

    Where's the evidence that Bin Laden had contact with the CIA?
    It's no secret that other members of the Bin Laden family had interests in the US and vice versa, is it?

    It's a huge powerful family.


  • #60
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why in your humble opinion did Jacob Rothschild work for MI5?

    Okay, your original claim was
    19 Arab patsies working for "former" CIA asset bin Laden.
    I'm not going to let you start making this about the Rothschild or anything else. where is your evidence that Bin Laden was a "former" CIA asset?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,076 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Where's the evidence that Bin Laden had contact with the CIA?



    It's a huge powerful family.

    Where's the evidence that he had no contact with the US.. either by proxy or through a double agent? Do you honestly believe that the best intelligence agency in the world had absolutely no idea that Bin Laden had operatives in the US before the attacks took place and just happened to evacuate members of his family after the attacks, regardless of the airspace still remaining closed at that time?


  • #62
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Okay, your original claim was

    I'm not going to let you start making this about the Rothschild or anything else. where is your evidence that Bin Laden was a "former" CIA asset?

    Take care. Chat to you when your not so confrontational... Goodnight.


  • #63
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Where's the evidence that he had no contact with the US..

    Thats really not how the world works. You don't get to claim Bin Laden was a CIA asset, (as BB has) and then demand that I go ahead and show that he wasn't a CIA asset.

    The onus of proof is on the person making the claim, not that person accused must proof their innocence.
    either by proxy or through a double agent? Do you honestly believe that the best intelligence agency in the world had absolutely no idea that Bin Laden had operatives in the US before the attacks took place?

    I think what is clear after the attack is that US intelligence agencies had plenty of intelligence, it's just it wasn't coordinated or organised.

    There's a thing in America it's called "monday morning quarterbacking", it's when a bunch of people get together and look at a game, and with the benefit of hindsight and with more information than was available, people speak with assumed authority what calls the coach or manager should have made.

    It's easy to look at the evidence and the intelligence after the attack, and be incredulous that they didn't spot the signs of the attack, with the benefit of hindsight


  • #64
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Take care. Chat to you when your not so confrontational... Goodnight.

    Thats two for two... No attempt to support your claims about quackwatch and no attempt to support your claim that Bin Laden was a CIA asset.


Advertisement