Recent Comments
RSS feed
John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 7, part 5
June 8, 2014 — xanthippaDay 1 part 1 and part 2 , Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4 part 1 and part 2 of this trial were covered in March, 2014 (write-ups by me at links).
Day 5 was going to be written up later, but…. As I was writing up the background needed to accurately portray the events of day 7 (parts 4 and up), I realized that I am describing much of the material that came out on day 5 and that a separate write up would be redundant.
Day 7 part 1 is here, part 2 is here and part 3 is here – sorry about having had to chop this up, it seems my original write up was too long for WordPress to format correctly.
Part 4 left off just as Dr. Baglow explained that he had produced email communication for discovery from the period that he believed ‘the comments’ had disappeared from his old blog, but not the period that the defense claims the comments ‘had been disappeared’, because he simply thought they were not observant enough to notice that the materials they need for their case had disappeared months earlier…
This had actually come out on Connie’s cross of Dr. Baglow on day 6 – but the background had to be explained in order for my report on the events of day 7 to make sense.
As a result of the now defined and testified to difference between the two time periods under discussion, Connie Fournier asked the judge to direct Dr. Baglow to produce the emails they had actually asked for instead of the ones he thought they ought to have.
Which the judge did.
…and which Dr. Baglow had indeed produced – on the morning of the 7th day in court….long after Mr. Bow’s cross examination had finished so he cannot even be cross examined as to the content within them. And Dr. Baglow cannot testify to anything about Mr. Bow’s side of the conversation, as he is not Mr. Bow.
Nice, non?
OK, so Dr. Baglow had finally disclosed the emails from the requested time period on the morning of the 7th day of court….and he even visibly hedged when describing the emails, saying these are the emails from this time period ‘that he thought were relevant’ – immediately raising in me the question whether there were others that the defense might deem relevant but he did not and so they would not have been disclosed…but I guess that is just my literal Aspie mind!!!
It was during Dr. Baglow’s cross examination by Connie Fournier regarding these late-disclosed-emails (which she had only 50 minutes to review before having to cross examine him on them!!!) that I reflected on Dr. Baglow’s past as a high-ranking member of PSAC (that’s pronounced P. S. A. C. – Dr. Baglow is not fond of the usual ‘Pee-sack’ pronunciation and testified so in court earlier), a behemoth of a public sector union. I could juxt picture him in labour negotiations, sticking to his line, appearing reasonable and affable (he can be incredibly charming), and making the most unreasonable labour demands sound like reasonable, middle-of-the-road compromises.
Aside:
This is, again, my literal Aspie mind at work here, but…it seems to me that if a group of organizations has to specifically be exempted from being charged under the racketeering laws, then they are (by definition) a form of legalized racketeering.
Now had we had a market system (instead of the fascistic crony-capitalism system we actually have now – and I am using the word fascistic in its core meaning: the collusion of government, big business and big labour against the rest of society), this would be self-correcting in the private sector: if the labour unions raise labour costs to an unsustainable level, the company goes bankrupt and a correction occurs.
But, in the public sector, unsustainable labour costs get passed down to the taxpayer until the society itself becomes bankrupt and collapses.
That is why I consider public sector union to be the cancer which is weakening our society and hastening its demise.
And, I say this as someone who had been a member of both a private and public sector unions…I’ve see the rot from the inside!!!
In my defense, I was young and when I learned the truth, I took a lower-paying non-unionized job…and felt the cleaner for it! After all, we Aspies like the laws to apply to everyone equally… As my favourite philosopher of the 20th century once said: a person’s a person, no matter how small!
In other words, I was admiring Dr. Baglow’s self control and ability to be completely non-pulsed and to appear relaxed even as clear contradictions to his sworn testimony were pointed out. I could certainly not handle it with such grace…
But, not Dr. Baglow!
Cool as a cucumber, he stuck to his line that all the comments had disappeared in November 2010 and he was positively baffled that the defendants could access them as late as March and/or April 2011! Not only could he not explain that discrepancy to them, he would have been glad had someone could explain it to him – after all, he testified, he is technologically quite ignorant…
When Madam Justice Polowin had a question about IP addresses, Dr. Baglow was very helpful to the court and correctly explained in great detail some very technical aspects of how the internet protocol worked – he spoke with the ease of an expert going over familiar ground and I was very impressed.
But, I digress…
Once the comments had stopped being visible (for whatever reason and at whatever time period) on the internet, the defense had asked for them in disclosure.
From what I understand, after a lot of hum-ing and haw-ing, a TEXT file with tens of thousands of comments, interspersed with code and completely devoid of context (i.e. missing such details like which posts they were in response to, other comments in their thread and their position in that thread – these had been completely stripped out).
As it was a text file, it was not possible to convert it to an actually usable format….
Dr. Baglow explained that they had submitted the comments in that format ‘in order to help the defense’…
Aside: an unimportant observation… Whenever Dr. Baglow is about to say something particularly patronizing or obfuscating – especially to Connie Fournier – he takes a moment, tilts his head back, glares down his nose at Connie, and only then speaks. I have no idea why, but it is a definite pattern…
It seems that Connie Fournier had not considered this to ‘be helpful’ and thought it an attempt at sabotaging the defense – and she objected to it.
From what I gather, she objected most vociferously!
It then (if I understood Dr. Baglow correctly) still took Dr. Baglow/Mr. Bow a couple of weeks to produce the comments in a format that was sortable and workable with. Indeed, Connie Fournier had produced a sample page showing how the comments (as Disqus files) were sortable and searchable.
Now that I have explained a little bit about the background of ‘the comments’, I can return to Connie’s cross of Dr. Baglow.
Connie had singled out one email in particular – dated, if I am not mistaken (please correct me if I am), April 3rd, 2011 – that appeared to be a ‘test comment’….since the word ‘test’ or ‘testing’ appeared on it and it had the identifier of having come either from Dr. Baglow himself or from someone who had his administrative identifiers. Once she established the date of the comment, entered the content, and demonstrated the identifier, Dr. Baglow claimed to have absolutely zero idea of how this could possibly have happened.
He was positively baffled – and looked up to the ceiling as he asserted so.
Well, well, well…
It seems that in one of the emails between the two of them – but only disclosed on the morning of the 7th day of the originally 3-day court hearings – Dr. Baglow had sent Mr. Bow his administrative id and password.
And the email came just before the time/date stamp of the ‘test comment’ from, I believe, April 3rd, 2011…
Now, if the plaintiff and his IT guy were testing the appearance of comments in 2011, why would they believe them to have disappeared in November of 2010?!?!?
As they say – the plot thickens!!!
Before the significance of the ‘gotcha’ could sink in on all present, Dr. Baglow laughed heartily and in a jovial manner informed all in the courtroom that he had since changed this password!
Madam Justice Polowin smiled indulgently and assured him that she has no intentions of using that password to access his blog…
I must admit, the deflection was skillfully executed – and again, in my mind, I was picturing Dr. Baglow sitting at a labour negotiations table.
Let me end here. There is very little more to come – some more of my observations and, perhaps, something about the pleasant conversations Dr. Baglow and I have enjoyed during some of the breaks.
John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 7, part 4
June 7, 2014 — xanthippaDay 1 part 1 and part 2 , Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4 part 1 and part 2 of this trial were covered in March, 2014 (write-ups by me at links).
Day 5 was going to be written up later, but…. As I was writing up the background needed to accurately portray the events of day 7 (parts 4 and up), I realized that I am describing much of the material that came out on day 5 and that a separate write up would be redundant.
Day 7 part 1 is here, part 2 is here and part 3 is here – sorry about having had to chop this up, it seems my original write up was too long for WordPress to format correctly.
Following the break (more about that later), Connie Fournier had a chance to cross examine Dr. Baglow regarding some emails he had JUST disclosed to her that morning. If this seems confusing (given that this has been dragging on for years), let me back up a lot and paint the situation:
One of the ‘bones of contention’ – and a source of huge frustration to the Fourniers – was the disclosure of emails between Dr. Baglow’s technical specialist, Mr. Bow, and Dr. Baglow during the time period when the comments from his old blog had disappeared from visibility on the internet.
Even more background information is needed, or this will not make any sense. And, I admit freely that my understanding is limited and I apologize for any errors I make. If you spot them, please, let me know and I will publish the correction!!! I’d rather be corrected than stay in error any day!!!
Dr. Baglow used to have ‘blogspot’ host his blog – which meant that the word ‘blogspot’ would appear in the middle of his blog’s address. Online, he had befriended Mr. Bow, who does some IT stuff as his hobby – and Mr. Bow eventually convinced Dr. Baglow to have his blog moved over to Mr. Bow’s server. Not only would he get a better service, Mr. Bow would get him an address for his blog that would not contain the server name on it.
Aside: why he would go about it in such a complicated manner is beyond me. All he had to do to get a domain name for his blog without the word ‘blogger’ in it (a few dollars a year) and use a pointer, so that the ‘non-blogger-name-displaying address would be visible and the ‘blogger’ bit be hidden: no migrating or headaches from lost comments necessary! But, of course, that would not bring Mr. Bow income for hosting the site, so, perhaps, he might not have mentioned this easy alternative…
For quite some time after Dr. Dawg’s blog had been ‘migrated over’ to the new server (with all the posts but without the old comments, which were in a difficult format), the old blog and all the comments for the posts were still visible on the internet.
According to Connie Fournier, that is – something Dr. Baglow bitterly disputes.
Connie Fournier and Barbara Kulaszka (BK), Mark Fournier’s lawyer, were looking through these comments on the old blog because they believed that much of the material they needed for their defense was contained in these very comments. According to my understanding (highly imperfect) of what Connie Fournier claims, she and BK were in the very process of looking at them one fine day in the spring of 2011 when suddenly, all these comments went ‘poof!’ and disappeared.
Or, perhaps, were disappeared…
If they ‘had been disappeared’ by the plaintiff or his agents at his direction (as opposed to just ‘disappeared’), it seems to me that this would be a very bad thing indeed…. Something called ‘despoliation’ – or, if I understand, willful destruction of evidence.
Dr. Baglow, of course, most vigorously maintains that the comments had NOT ‘been disappeared’ but simply were not visible on the new site due to a technical glitch and, as far as he is aware, they had also disappeared (not ‘been disappeared’) from the old blog, which he insist on calling ‘the transitional blog’ but admits it is identical to the old blog, except for the colourscheme…..and, of course, it lacks the comments.
As Dr. Baglow had had his blog moved from blogger to Mr. Bow’s server in November 2010, he insists that all comments also disappeared (due to said technical glitch – which was endlessly gone over and over on day 5 of the case – and since I am explaining it here, it now seems redundant to write that day up separately…) in November 2010.
Ms. Fournier insists she was browsing through them online in the spring of 2011. I am not certain of the exact dates, but the 30th of March and 3rd of April 2011 kept coming up as the timeframe when the comments were visible online and when they disappeared.
Or were disappeared.
Not my call….
So, in discovery, the defense asked for all the emails between Dr. Baglow and Mr. Bow from this time period to be disclosed (I am not certain of how it was phrased, but, I cannot help but have an impression that spring 2011 was specifically mentioned).
Dr. Baglow had indeed disclosed a slew of emails between himself and Mr. Bow – but from November/December 2010. When questioned about why he had disclosed emails from the wrong time period, Dr. Baglow became nastily condescending and said (and I am paraphrasing) that he just thought the defendants were too stupid to realize when the comments had disappeared, so he had thought to help them and provided them with the emails from the ‘right’ time period.
And he stuck to that line.
At least, that is my most humble recollection and my most imperfect understanding of the events and the testimony regarding them. If I got something wrong, it is not intentional and I would respectfully request that if you can, please do let me know so that I may correct my posts. Thank you.
More coming soon!
John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 7, part 2
June 6, 2014 — xanthippaDay 1 part 1 and part 2 , Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4 part 1 and part 2 of this trial were covered in March, 2014 (write-ups by me at links).
Day 5 will be written up later, as writing it up may affect the trial…
Day 7 part 1 is here – sorry about having had to chop this up into short little bits, it seems my original write up was too long for WordPress to format correctly.
We re-join the action as Mr. Frankel, ‘the CCLA guy’ is cross examining Dr. Baglow.
Much of the next bit of cross examination was designed to demonstrate to the judge just how internet forums worked. The post ‘Yokels with pitchforks’ was used as an example…
In is my strong impression that Dr. Baglow feels really, really badly about having used this phrase. Not because it insults right-wingers, but because as an avowed blue-collar people defender he is supposed to be protective of our agricultural workers (I do believe this was the turn of phrase he used) and using the negative stereotype of the rural farmers as a smear against his ideological enemies comes dangerously close to lifting the proverbial curtain and revealing the champagne socialist behind it…
It is also my strong impression that Mr. Frankel noticed Dr. Baglow’s discomfort with having so bared his prejudices against our rural neighbours and agricultural workers and that this is precisely why he selected the ‘Yokels with pitchforks’ post as an example.
It is also my strong impression that Dr. Baglow understood perfectly well that Mr. Frankel saw through him and that that is why he elected to use this post as an example of ‘nesting’, as he (Dr. Baglow, that is) flushed and chuckled to try to hide his discomfort.
As I said before – look out for Mr. Frankel, he WILL become a superstar of our legal system!
This is the atmosphere in which Mr. Frankel’s cross examination of Dr. Baglow took place.
Aside:
When Ms. Kulaszka cross examined him, D. Baglow was relaxed and calm.
When Connie Fournier examined him, he assumed a patronizing drawl, an air of impatient indulgence towards a particularly dense student as he alternately said he was baffled by the facts that things he had testified could not have happened had actually happened, explained his technical arrogance ignorance and, for a man in his prime , he certainly experienced a lot of memory lapses. But, he kept his cool.
When under cross by Mr. Frankel, Dr. Baglow’s cheeks were flushed, he looked down a lot of the time and he seemed very uncomfortable in his seat.
Other blogs and bloggers were raised. Two that came up a lot were Kathy Shaidle, the Canadian poetess and the grande dame of Canadian blogosphere, for whom Dr. Baglow had visceral contempt (which I found surprising, as she is an acclaimed poetess and Dr. Baglow has his doctorate in poetry – I would have thought there might have been room for some common ground there) and Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals (SDA).
Disclosure: when I first started blogging, it was Kathy Shaidle who reached out to me, even though we are not of the same ideological bend, welcomed me to the blogosphere and encouraged me to blog…as well as introduced me to several other bloggers. It seemed to me that she did not care about my ideology but thought that the more varied opinions on the Canadian blogosphere there are, the better for everyone. For her kindness and encouragement, I will always be grateful to her.
As for SDA – I am aware of the blog but, as I am not a fan of the format, I am really not aware of what goes on there. I just don’t have the time to follow more than a handful of blogs myself. Yet, after what I’ve heard of Kate McMillan in court, I just might stop by there and check SDA out!
It seemed that the very mention of Kathy Shaidle unsettled Dr. Baglow so much, the judge requested that Mr. Frankel go with the Kate McMillan example – which, with a satisfied smile (I saw that as he turned away from the judge and witness to permit himself that brief smile) he was happy to do. I suspect he wanted to go there all along….as that is where some rather unpleasant ‘stuff’ about Dr. Baglow came out.
A few years ago, Dr. Baglow’s partner suffered an illness, from which she eventually died. Dr. Baglow was her support, her rock – and was understandably devastated by the loss of the partner he loved. He has my deepest sympathies for his suffering and loss, which I am certain he still feels every day.
One of the people who expressed empathy to Dr. Baglow and his partner as they were undergoing these trying times was Kate McMillan of SDA.
Mr. Frankel established, through Dr. Baglow’s statements, that Kate McMillan had put aside all partisanship and supported Dr. Baglow on a human level when he needed it most. For his part Dr. Baglow said he was grateful to her – and looked quite somber and sad as he seemed to know where the questioning was heading… It seems that even though she supported him in his hour of need – human to human – Dr. Baglow had no difficulty in objectifying her as an ideological enemy, with no regard for her humanity, and calling her some truly vicious, unpleasant things.
Dr. Baglow explained that this was because they had had a ‘falling out’…
Sad, so sad…
And I suspect this was not lost on Madam Justice Polowin…
More installments coming soon!
Baglow vs. Fournier, Forunier & Smith – the trial continues
June 2, 2014 — xanthippaBack in March, I wrote about the Dr. Dawg vs. Fourniers and Smith full trial, covering Day 1 part 1 and part 2 , Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4 part 1 and part 2.
Aside: I did attend day 5, and did keep notes, and I did try to write it up. However, I found it difficult to do it justice, before the cross examination is finished. I do still hope to write about day 5, just when the time is ‘right’.)
Well days 6 and 7 are almost upon us!
The trial will continue on June 3rd and 4th, at the Elgin Street Court House in Ottawa. If you happen to be in Ottawa and have a bit of time, drop by and see history made.
And I am not exaggerating when I say that this will be a historic case: the full trial is being held specifically because the appeal court justices believed that legal precedents regarding online communications need to be set. Therefore, this case will become the guidelines by which all future online communication is judged!
In the words of the Fourniers themselves:
Hi, FD Friends! Once again I’m emailing you with a Free Dominion legal update because you have helped us in the past, and/or you are on our list of friends who are interested in keeping up with our cases. (Please let me know if you no longer want to get these status reports.)
Never give up!
Free Dominion, as you know, is still closed to the public, but that doesn’t mean we have quit!
We are appealing the Warman decision that resulted in the site being closed, and we are currently fighting a very important test case for internet defamation. A win in this case, Baglow v Free Dominion, could result in a decision that site operators are not responsible for the posts of other people. That case law would mean it would be safe for us to re-open the doors of Free Dominion!
The case so far..
We reported last time we wrote you that the Baglow trial would be three days long. Not only did it take that entire week, but we have to go back again for two days in June, and for another whole week in September! That means we will be in court for a total of 13 days for a total of 7 little words!
On June 3rd and 4th we will be in Ottawa for the next phase of that Baglow trial. Connie is representing herself and Barbara Kulaszka is representing Mark. The CCLA is intervening on our behalf.
On June 3rd, Connie will be cross-examining John Baglow and we will hear from the CCLA on the 4th. It will be at the Courthouse at 161 Elgin St, as usual.
Drop by if you can, we would love to see you!
We are running a fundraiser to get our legal fund through the summer. We’ve decided not to use indiegogo this time because it costs a lot and we have to pay them their percentage on offline donations, too, if we want to keep the total current. Instead, we are running it on Free Dominion.
If you can help, we would really appreciate it!
You can use PayPal by clicking this link: DonateorIf you feel more inclined, you can also help out using an Interac Email Money Transfer to connie@freedominion.ca .Alternatively, our mailing address is:Connie Fournier2000 Unity RdElginburg, ON K0H 1M0Thank you so much to all of you for being there for us! Monetarily, but also through your thoughts, prayers and encouragement. We are not going to give up, and we hope that the result of our fight is more freedom for all of us!
Connie and Mark
TSEC’s report on the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada
May 27, 2014 — xanthippaThis report is making national news today and deservedly so.
CAIR-Can, now re-branded as the NCCM, and named as a Muslim Brotherhood front, is on the warpath about this article –Terrorists in our midst, penned by the report’s authors – Anti-Muslim diatribe promotes false suspicion – so you know they’re doin it right;)
See also Legal Insurrection for more report coverage – Muslim Brotherhood in North America
The report was written by Tom Quiggin, a member of the Terrorism and Security Experts of Canada Network (TSEC). Concurrent research at the TSEC network includes a methodology project for intelligence analysts involved in the analysis of extremism. A Horizon Scanning project on the convergence of extremist ideologies is being readied for distribution in late 2014.
This project was funded internally by the TSEC network. There is no government, corporate, media or foreign money involved. The report may be accessed directly at the TSEC site.
KEY JUDGEMENTS
- Canada has a significant presence of Muslim Brotherhood adherent individuals and organizations. Their values and actions are frequently the antithesis of the Canadian Constitution, values and law. Despite statements to the contrary, the Muslim Brotherhood considers itself above local laws and national constitutions.
- The Muslim Brotherhood’s use of settlement and the “process of civilization jihad” has proven effective. The long term aim is to globally impose a virulent form of political Islam to the exclusion of other faiths or systems.
- Internationally, the Muslim Brotherhood is realigning under pressure as old alliances crumble and opportunities arise. An aggressive posture is re-emerging which has used extensive political violence in the past.
- The policy and process of denial is deeply rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Muslim Brotherhood adherent groups should not be given governmental accreditation, access to public grants nor should they have charity status.
- Canada’s stance against Muslim Brotherhood adherent organizations in recent years has been more aggressive than the USA, especially in financial areas.
NB – The report is in 11 sections.
1) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Canada/USA)
2) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Back to the Past, The Palestinian Cause)
3) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America: (Violence, Current Events, Law, Extremism)
4) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America – (Prejudice and the Muslim Community)
5) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Front Organizations, Policy of Denial)
6) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Canadians with Leadership Roles)
7) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Three exampes, Charity Status Revoked for several entities)
8) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Other Countries, USA Role, Intel, Recommendations, Conclusions)
9) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Glossary, Bibliography)
10) The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Annex A 1991 Memorandum and Annex B The Ikhwan in America)
11. The Muslim Brotherhood in North America (Annex C to Annex K)
Mugged by the State: When Regulators and Prosecutors Bully Citizens (William Hurwitz, M.D.)
May 26, 2014 — xanthippaThe following video explores just how damaging it can be for ‘regulators’ to ‘regulate’ things they have no personal stake in – like the pain and suffering of another human being.
Pain is a uniquely individual experience – no two people experience the same injury or ‘pain’ in exactly the same way. The way our society deals with individuals who are in the process of experiencing pain is insulting and actively counter-productive.
OK – I may be off on a rant again – if you’d like, skip to the video.
But pain is something I know quite a bit about, having been on the receiving end of more and more intense pain than most of the people I know. And medical personnel have uniquely failed to comprehend any of it…
For example: when you tell medical personnel (mp) that you are experiencing pain, they will typically ask you: “On a scale from 1 to 10 (or, 1-5 – or something similar), how bad is the pain?”
Excuse me, but a person who had never experienced more than a hangnail or a papercut will not be using the same scale as someone who had suffered sufficient level of pain so as to loose consciousness from the pain alone. So, that question is irrelevant at best, downright harmful in reality.
Yet that is the starting point for our medical ‘science’….
While I am ranting – I have two children. As such, I have been through labour twice. The first time, I had an epidural; the second time there was a danger of an emergency C-section, so I got what is called a ‘saddle-block‘. ( Both are a form of pain relief – one through delivering an analgesic to the spine, so that everything below is numbed, the other blocks the neural transmissions of pain below the solar plexus so that an emergency surgery can be performed without being felt – or so it had been explained to me. Different methods, different medications – one is a continuous dose, the other is one-time-lasts-for-few-hours type thing.)
In both cases, I was able to tell the mp exactly what stage I was in, and was not believed because, according to them, I had no way to feel things through the procedure,. Both times I was right – of course, or I would not be writing about it here. Especially the second delivery was surprising to the mps: I had only just entered labour when the baby went into distress and I got wheeled into the operating room where they were already scrubbing for the emergency C-section. Well, as the panic took over my body, it went into ‘hyper mode’ and even before they secured the gurney, I was ready to deliver. They did not believe me. I insisted they check. The baby came….and it was faster than had they done the C-section!
They stood around shaking their heads, wondering how I could possibly have felt it? But, I did….. (Mind you, the process was so fast, I dislocated a hip in the process, but that is a small price to pay for preventing oxygen deprivation to my baby!)
Why am I ranting on about this?
Simply to demonstrate that pain is not perceived the same way by different people. Even things as well known and understood such as local anaesthesia will be perceived by some people differently than most.
Even the same ‘thing’ – like childbirth – can differ: not just from woman to woman, but from delivery to delivery. My sister-in-law has 4 children – and says that the pain she experienced during her 4th delivery was much stronger and very, very different from the pain she experienced with her first 3 children. So, even if mps ask about a pain scale where 0 is no pain and 5 is childbirth pain – guess what, there is no common top to the scale!
So, if even well understood meds like local anaesthesia are not accurately known by our medical people, how about a new and quickly evolving field, such as chronic pain management?!?!?
And what happens when regulators try to get their proverbial two cents in?
What happens when politics tries to inject itself into the cutting edge of medical research?
Here is one such story:
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 