Autism Blog - Care Clinics and Doctors Data sued

17 Jul 2009

Author: Sullivan
Comments: 11

Care Clinics and Doctors Data sued

An alternative medicine clinic specializing in autism, Care Clinics of Austin Texas was recently raided by the FBI and the IRS and appears to be shut down.

According to the Quackwatch website In another action, Care Clinics and Doctor’s Data are being sued:

CARE Clinics, of Austin Texas, its owner Kazuko Curtin, its subsidiaries, and Chicago-based Doctor’s Data have been sued for fraud, negligence, and conspiracy

The complaint is being brought by an adult, apparently not autistic, who claims to have been misdiagnosed for heavy metal poisoning. In a step that could have a big impact on the autism alternative-medicine community, the petitioner is charging that the method of testing for heavy metals, specifically that used by Doctors Data, is fraudulent.

It’s worth repeating: it is hard to underestimate the impact of a successful suit against challenge testing to “diagnose” mercury poisoning.

9 people like this post.

Link to this post?

If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.

<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/07/care-clinics-and-doctors-data-sued/">Care Clinics and Doctors Data sued</a>

Comments

11 Responses to “Care Clinics and Doctors Data sued”

daedalus2u
July 17th, 2009
15:49:10

I think they will try to settle so as to avoid going to trial. They could afford to pay millions to settle this one case because if it goes to trial and they lose (which they undoubtedly will) the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Clay
July 17th, 2009
22:31:04

Just how big is Care Clinics? Do they have franchise in other cities? I’d like to see Doctors Data go down.
Clay
July 17th, 2009
22:48:31

Attempting to answer my own question, I found their website:
http://www.mycareclinics.com/index.html
There’s a little film, an interview of Kazuko Curtin.
(In better times, apparently.)
Sullivan
July 17th, 2009
23:09:47

Clay,

they had a clinic in Florida, as I recall.

How big? They grew from a $223K/year business in 2004 to over $6M in 2007. Can’t tell how much in 2008.
http://www.autism-watch.org/re.....view.shtml
Tsu Dho Nimh
July 18th, 2009
00:05:58

I want this to go to trial, if only because discovery would be so much fun to watch.
daedalus2u
July 18th, 2009
16:44:29

I would like it to go to trial too, but I don’t think that is going to happen. I would bet that the owners of DD and CC are busy moving assets offshore and to other shell companies to shield them from a judgement. Then CC and DD will simply go out of business and default.

I wonder if it was that asset movement that triggered the IRS raid?
VFV Blog » Blog Archive » News from the week of July 12, 2009
July 20th, 2009
16:52:32

[...] autism blog Left Brain/Right Brain has noted that CARE Clinics is also being sued by an adult who claims he was falsely diagnosed with heavy metal poisoning at the clinic after his [...]
John Ordille
July 26th, 2009
06:12:29

I am not sure exactly what happened for the FBI and IRS raids but I can say that I have spent 14 days at care clinic and I have never found people as professional, caring and profficient in the care of my children. I was not over charged and neither was my insurance company. I have used DDL and several other labs for heavy metal testing and they all come up with similar results. I was planning a trip to Austin in two weeks and now it is cancelled. I am not sure if I can find the treatments they offer all in one place and handled as well as they do. I will miss them and I only hope my children still have a chance to recover.
Jane Springs
October 21st, 2009
22:57:21

Your argument is based on the fact that a) provoking a response is artificial, and b) the reference ranges are based on unprovoked responses.

I would question your argument as follows:

i) Just because a response is provoked does not mean it is artificial. Most individuals believe that ANY level of mercury is harmful to the body. To have it stored in the body (showing up in a provoked response) is as harmful as to have it circulating actively in your blood or urine. Over time, the regulating bodies have made the standards STRICTER, indicating that there is MORE evidence over time about the toxicity of these substances, not less.

ii) The reference ranges are based on BLOOD levels, not urine levels. The reference ranges are the sham because there is no reference range for urine or feces where most of the excretion is done.

iii) Actually, the references ranges do not indicate whether a provoking/chelating agent was used or not. In fact, many foods also act as provoking agents. Unless the studies are STRICTLY performed and the food intake is STRICTLY monitored, you cannot say one way or the other whether the response is truly provoked or not.

Additionally, the reference ranges do not indicate whether they are an average or a mean. The reference ranges are not correlated with the amount of toxin needed to provoke a health problem, rather they just show that there is a lot of toxin in the environment.
Joseph
October 21st, 2009
23:43:20

Your argument is based on the fact that a) provoking a response is artificial, and b) the reference ranges are based on unprovoked responses.

@Jane: It’s not based on a). Artificiality is irrelevant. The point is that provoked testing is expected to produce results different to unprovoked testing. Chelation is supposed to clear metals; this is true regardless of who undergoes testing, unless perhaps the individual has been chelated for a long time.

Your point i seems to indicate that any metals showing up in testing are harmful, whether it be from provoked or unprovoked testing. In other words, humans should not carry any amount of metals at all. On what basis?

To put it another way, suppose the lab tests are always positive for any individual who gets tested. What would be the value of such a test? If you don’t think they are always positive, how could you know this without reference values for provoked testing?
Dedj
October 22nd, 2009
00:47:21

As Jane started the pedant train I thought I’d join in.

‘Stored’ compounds are not always as potent in immediate or long term effect as circulating compounds, especially not if their target molecule, required reagent or catalyst is only present elsewhere.

This principle is what allows depot injections and other sub-c and IM injections to work as intended.

Blood reference ranges are used to prevent the ‘lag’ inherent in urine and faecal tests. The exception being for substances metabolised in the kidneys or bladder. Urine reference ranges are available, and apparently in use by Doctors Data. Calling blood reference ranges a ‘sham’ is bizarre, unless one wishes to proclaim that either a) the origin of the compound of concern is in the urinary system and is excreted immediately (contradicting the autism=mercury poisoning hypothesis) or that b) the compound is not extracted from the blood to go into the urine for excretion (contradicting the use of non-oral chelators).

Just trying to work out how blood reference levels are supposedly a ‘sham’ because of the reason given by Jane has given me a headache.

In addition, reference ranges are typically worked out from the mean of the sample population. Deviation from the reference range does not mean illness is indicated, nor does it indicate environmental poisoning.

That laying outside the reference range does not equal illness is one of the many points being made in the complaint, as is the allegation that the ‘provoked’ test was presented.