So, which so called "DS surgeons" should we avoid?

I never said that dsfacts.com could not be trusted.  You all did with your responses of WLS surgeons to avoid which implies that the information on this website is not to be trusted.

Wow, sounds like you had better go away then if everyone here is so untrustworthy! I'm sorry we've all done you such a disservice!

Dang, it must indeed be time for him to go away, since he is so poorly served here.

Nope,  I am a glutton for punishment!

The vetted surgeon's list is a starting point. If you look at it, and find a particular surgeon that interests you, you should do more research into that surgeon. The DS is less commonly performed and requires diligent follow-up; if you are a sheep who just wants to be told when & where to show up to have your DS done, then the DS isn't for you.

We DID our research.

However, our list was very short, We had to have someone who
1) Willing to work on lightweights
2) HAD to be a COE as 20% or self pay is NOT an option if we wanted surgery THIS decade.
3) Had to accept BOTH insurance companies, one being medicare.
4) Wanted to stay east of the Mississippi if possible and had to stay IN country.

That dropped the list to about 3 or 4.

We also wanted to avoid the program fee. Dr. Smith (one of the 3-4) in Atlanta NOW has a program fee. I have his paperwork and it has recently been established. Also no guarantee that you get in even after talking to them. I had a guarentee from Pomp in a personal email from him stating he would do a longer common channel on me due to my being a LW (35.6 BMI).

When I googled Dr. Pomp's name, and the words, suit, judgement, settlement, ect, nothing pops up. That tells me quite a bit about the man. Plus at the time we started OUR search, nothing about two stage had started coming out yet. And to be honest, my husband and I have both talked about it, if we wake up with sleeves instead of DS's, it will be okay with us. We prefer the DS but we can deal with sleeves.

Liz

Then I'm having a hard time understanding why you and your husband are being giant douche bags to the entire board.

You say that at the time you started your search nothing had come up about bait-and-don't switch. What did you expect Bev (or anyone else) to do, see the future? She could no more predict what would happen than you could. The only concern I see raised in this thread about Pomp is that an awful lot of his patients seem to be waking up with VSG's instead of DS's. If that doesn't bother you (and you say it doesn't), I don't see the problem.

Then I'm having a hard time understanding why you and your husband are being giant douche bags to the entire board.

MY problem with this thread is that it can get quite a few of you in very deep legal ho****er.

Liz

Why are you concerned if other people get themselves in ho****er?

Why are you concerned if other people get themselves in ho****er?

Because many don't know that they can. Internet law is changing and changing fast. There are even lawyers out there willing to take on cases just like this.

And with the legal case law already set by at least one case, it would not take much to take the people in this thread and the owers of the forum to court for allowing it to remain. Defamation is not hard to prove.

And I, for one, don't want to see OH involved in a legal case that should never have happened.

Liz

Are you an attorney?

I'm guessing you're not an attorney.  I am.

Opinions, labeled as such, are not defamation.  Some excerpts from the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation, which may be at a level you can understand:

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Note that all of the comments in this thread are presented as OPINION, not fact.

Defenses include:
Truth:  In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libellous.

Privilege and malice:  "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in cir****tances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments made with an honest belief in their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.