From the Patient Advocate website:

“…she’s transitioning through treatment for it now, but most certainly, a year’s worth of IBC missed diagnoses have shortened her life”

From the original article:

“She carried that terror for six more weeks, while an internist, two obstetrician-gynecologists, a radiologist, a breast surgeon and an infectious disease specialist all got it wrong, treating her over and over for an infection she didn’t have, despite symptoms that only worsened.”

and from the article:

“Greer’s biopsy, done at University Physicians Healthcare Hospital at Kino Campus, came back negative. But at least one physician who has treated her since then told her there is clear evidence of cancer on the biopsy. A biopsy at Mayo confirmed inflammatory breast cancer”

So just how do these doctors make the diagnosis of IBC in the setting of a negative biopsy (though possibly read wrong by path). Just how does the patient advocate turn six weeks into one year? Why hasn’t the patient advocate bothered to update her website even though she has been told her initial blog was incorrect? Claiming to be a “patient advoacte” does not give you license to play with the facts.

The board could more readily utilize confidential complaints, in which it knows the complaintant’s identity, but keeps it hidden during early probing. If the compliant is to be used as evidence, then the complaintant must agree to what society considers general rules of fairness, that the complaintant’s veracity be open to question and interpretation in an open forum; to have the accused be permitted to face their accusor. This is the only way for any justice to be meeted out. The protections keeping us from suffering inquisitions such as the Spanish ran or in the Star Chamber are prevented by only these few rules of evidence.

Now, that would be overzealous.