Jen Harrison Split from Big Daddy's Wholesale Thread

[spix14]

I second (or is it third?) that. I've been following this from the beginning and have been willing to give Jen the benefit of the doubt-up until this whole debacle about her selling snakes. And now we have this vet saying that she's basically been BSing us all about her having been cleared to sell her babies. Very interesting.

[littleindiangirl]

I'm pretty sure she'll just continue saying that Doctor Gordo said it was ok, and this doctor doesn't know what he's talking about etc etc...

This isn't reasurring in the least.

From the TSK forums. (which I can't register with? Must have banned gmail?)

http://ballpython.com/forum/viewtopi...=5060&start=30

Dr. Brodnik also gave me some good news last night – I’m able to continue working with my breeding projects and can keep going with my hobby:

So is it Dr. Brodnik that needs to be consulted? Or should they all be contacted?

[TooManyToys]

OK so I emailed Dr. Jacobsen to find out if he had acctually advised Jen that it would be ok to sell off the hatchlings and start rebuilding her collection. I received this from him today:

Well, this pretty much put's an end to all the speculation. The virus was not identified, nor were any animals cleared to be released.

This sure reinforces only buying animals from known and trusted sources.

[Tosha_Mc]

Considering Dr. Jacobson is the specialist and the one running the tests and the only one that really knows what is going on - one would assume that is the advise to follow - however - Jen has been following her own agenda. And Dr. Gordon doesn't return calls.

My initial email to Dr. Jacobson - I was a bit POed and basically called him negligent for advising Jen to release these animals into the community. After receiving his email I have apologized for the previous one - as apparently I'd gotten misinformation - and he's sent another email to me - in which he asks that these not be distributed - ooops.

Since I can't unring that bell - I would be willing to share them with one person who I can trust to verify what needs to be verified but keep them forthwith off the internet. I think that is only fair - I have got to go back and apologize to the good Dr. yet again.

[dr del]

Hi,

Given his wishes that these not be distributed I feel it is wise to temporarily remove the text from your previous post until you manage to either get his permission or have him contact the site with his wishes.

Thank you for alerting us to this.


dr del

[Gloryhound]

Hi,

Given his wishes that these not be distributed I feel it is wise to temporarily remove the text from your previous post until you manage to either get his permission or have him contact the site with his wishes.

Thank you for alerting us to this.


dr del

I would think all the PM's quoted in this thread be considered under the same pretense! If the origional author does not put it in an open forum would it possibly not be the wishes of that person that it not be put it here?

This thread has liability and lawsuits written all over it! The good doctor did not want his E-mail published: Strike one, it got published! The damage is now irreversible. Also the doctor shared information that may fall under a client confidentiality issue! That person was never given the right to publish, but did! How many people read it?

Oh boy if I was a lawyer right now my eyes would be seeing dollar signs as I was contacting people!

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Someone got it on Fauna's BOI...and nothin' gets deleted off of there...

I also was curious about client confidentiality...Is he legally allowed to talk to anyone that calls/emails about a customers/patients case?

[Gary Orner]

If she did not go directly to him and her vet asked for support. I would not see it as him breaking client confidentiality. As he was just asked to do lab work by another vet. Now if this is not the case who knows. But it should not even come to that. This is getting out of hand.

[dr del]

I would think all the PM's quoted in this thread be considered under the same pretense! If the origional author does not put it in an open forum would it possibly not be the wishes of that person that it not be put it here?

This thread has liability and lawsuits written all over it! The good doctor did not want his E-mail published: Strike one, it got published! The damage is now irreversible. Also the doctor shared information that may fall under a client confidentiality issue! That person was never given the right to publish, but did! How many people read it?

Oh boy if I was a lawyer right now my eyes would be seeing dollar signs as I was contacting people!

Hi,

The following is my personal opinion only and in no way constitues the position of the staff and, since I have the legal knowledge of a weevil, it must also be assumed that I am unable to provide legal opinions.

On the subject of the Pm's;

I see what you are saying but there are differences - the pm's were sent within the site and not published outwith the site.

18. All content belongs to BP.net and may not be redistributed elsewhere without Administrator approval. Posts, photos, caresheets, or other intellectual property of other members, contributors, or staff, may not be used outside the Site without express, documented permission of said person. Public posting of permission by other member under his/her own user-name is considered documented permission, as is non-anonymous e-mail or a stored Private Message on this Site.

(MY emphasis only)

They were also clearly (again my opinion only) in violation of the rules that the sender had agreed to upon joining.

8. No posts promoting illegal behavior will be tolerated, including but not limited to warez/pirating of copyrighted material, illegal drug or alcohol usage, and illegal ownership or trafficking of species.

A step by step guide on how to set up an alternate online personality with the explicit intent to decieive others hardly falls within the spirit of legal or moral behaviour.

On the subject of the emails;

I agree it is unfortunate that permission was not sought before the publishing but since it only took 4 minutes from discovering this to removing the information on a purely voluntary basis I'm not sure what more you think the site should, or could, have done?

I, obviously, cannot and will not attempt to speak for the BOI.

I also, being in a different country with a different legal system, have not the first understanding on whether or not doctor patient confidentiallity exists within the vetinary profession in any way shape or form.

All of these points will be very carefully considered by the staff I assure you. But this will take time and a better understanding than I can currently bring to the discussion so I would ask that you bear with us until reasoned consideration has taken place.


dr del

[Tosha_Mc]

There actually isn't a law on the confidentiality of electronic mail - even those with the disclaimer on the bottom - aren't by law confidential - ironic aint it.

But that is beside the point - the email was addressed to me and was my property - at the time there was no confidentiality (written or implied) between myself and the Dr. and the request for confidentiality came after the fact and was quickly remedied. As it stands the removal of the information was a simple courtesy. Those of you that know me know I am big on confidentiality - so I don't take this lightly.

Whether there was a Dr. patient breech on behalf of the Dr. by what he told me - I don't know - he really didn't say anything I didn't already know? And, considering what she has quoted all over her blog it would be hard for her to imply that there was some strict confidentiality agreement anyway. Not to mention that it would blow that whole "full disclosure to the community" thing she was going for right out of the water.

For what it's worth - it really is better to have it out there that this current course of action is not under the recommendation of the specialists researching the virus but rather Jens agenda and that her animals really should not be trusted at this time.

Thank you again Dr. Del for removing the text.