Reputation Defender: Hugh Calkins, MD

Quote:

It is not correct to characterize the board eligible cardiologist who assisted me in the procedure as a student. Most physicians use assistants for certain parts of the procedure. We think it is better to have the "assistant" be a cardiologist rather than a nurse or physicians assistant. In general the best outcomes are achieved in academic institutions that incorporate advanced fellows who are board eligible cardiologists in performing complex procedures.

I wish I could claim that 100% of procedures I perform are effective and that no complications occur. As you know, this is not the case for me or for any physician who performs invasive procedures.

You and I are well aware that despite the fact that we did our best, a complication occurred. Everyone involved with your procedure wishes this had not been the case."

____________

Nice try Doc.

Now to the truth:
"I am also sure you recognize that all procedures have risks and benefits that need to be carefully considered before proceeding."

It sure would have been nice to know all of the risks and benefits before proceeding, and I found out, finally, why you out-and-out LIED to my wife and me about this; because you didn't know yourself if catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation was safe and effective. “the safety and efficacy of pulmonary vein ablation was unknown then[in 2000]and it is unknown now... "

That's why you were using my wife as a guinea pig: to find out if this procedure had any merit. (You concluded years later that this "was not the answer.")

"It is not correct to characterize the board eligible cardiologist who assisted me in the procedure as a student."

Assisted you?
You, Hugh G. Calkins, MD, weren't even scrubbed in when your trainee, Richard C. WU, turned the knob the wrong way and corkscrewed a lasso mapping catheter through the mitral valve and into the left ventricle of Pam's heart.

"You and I are well aware that despite the fact that we did our best, a complication occurred. Everyone involved with your procedure wishes this had not been the case."

It's not that "a complication" occurred. What happened was that you lied to my wife and me about the risks and benefits of the procedure. You lied to my wife and me about who was going to perform the procedure. You allowed a rookie operator to perform what you have called "by far the most dangerous procedure ever performed in an electrophysiology lab.”

What you "did your best" to do was to repeatedly lie, stonewall and cover up.

The reason that I am able to refer to you, Hugh G. Calkins, as a deceptive and dangerous doctor on this or any other public forum is because all of these facts and many others are fully documented in a book that is selling very well, thank you: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1456471600/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

As for your reply to Pam's Rating comment: Have you no shame?