S10.E22: Reunion Part 3

[Scrambled Fog]

And Brooks forged them.

And nobody at City of Hope is dumb enough to have a David Brooks Ayers in the system, but not admit to it, because hey, David B Ayers =/= David Brooks Ayers.

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Are you saying if City of Hope confirmed a David Brooks Ayers as not being a patient of theirs, they confirmed a David B. Ayers as not a patient as well by default?

Or did I completely miss your point?

----

Edited November 11, 2015 by Scrambled Fog

[Watermelon]

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Are you saying if City of Hope confirmed a David Brooks Ayers as not being a patient of theirs, they confirmed a David B. Ayers as not a patient as well by default?

Or did I completely miss your point?

----

Why yes. Yes I did.  

 

OR for clarity, Maybe David Bowie Ayers does indeed go to City of Hope. But David B. Ayers aka Brooks, doesn't.  And when they clarified for E!, like all have been waiting for, they made sure to call him by his whole name.  I'm so ok with the facts as presented.  You aren't, and THATS OK.  I'll eat all the crow in the world if you ever get your proof Brooks has cancer.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Watermelon

[AnnA]

Meghan called it early on and she was right.

 

I'm pretty sure she also said "Wait 90 days or so and Brooks will claim he's cured."   Those may not be her exact words but guess what?

 

Meghan was right again.

Edited November 11, 2015 by AnnA

[pamme64]

These women are not concerned about each other.

It's all a big game to see who can come out on top and who can get the most air time.

I always thought so.  It's just for entertainment purposes, so, yea, it's a game.    

[Mya Stone]

Here's the deal.

What is being lost is that REGARDLESS of whether or not Brooks lied about cancer...he's a DOUCHE CANOE. Always has been, always will be.

With that off my chest, Lisin and I have decided we have given you all ample time to discuss this, and that as its really just all of you dancing around in circles; we're not heartless, we won't pull the rug without warning. So we'll let you all get dizzy one last time...

And then were locking this tomorrow morning. Because guys...it's time to let this go.

[Scrambled Fog]

Why yes. Yes I did.

OK. Thanks.

*If* those documents are legit, and City of Hope really did confirm a David Brooks Ayers as not being a patient, I doubt the representative would have been able to confirm a David B Ayers as not being a patient as well. Digitized medical records systems don't work that way for security and privacy reasons.

When going into a medical records system, you have to know precisely who you are looking for, with the correct spelling. It is set up that way so the healthcare worker only accesses the patient information they only have legitimate reasons to research, and don't accidentally access patient information they have no legitimate reason to access.

I hope what I wrote makes sense.

[WireWrap]

The name on the document on the E website states David B Ayers. It can be seen above the black rectangle.

http://m.eonline.com/news/714504/the-truth-revealed-brooks-ayers-was-never-treated-for-cancer-at-city-of-hope-hospital-spokesperson-says

You are right. I went back and looked. NOW will Brooks say that E got it wrong or that CoH got it wrong? I also think that the Hospital would see David B Ayers when they were looking for a David Brooks Ayers and say something instead of denying him.

[Watermelon]

OK. Thanks.

*If* those documents are legit, and City of Hope really did confirm a David Brooks Ayers as not being a patient, I doubt the representative would have been able to confirm a David B Ayers as not being a patient as well. Digitized medical records systems don't work that way for security and privacy reasons.

When going into a medical records system, you have to know precisely who you are looking for, with the correct spelling. It is set up that way so the healthcare worker only accesses the patient information they only have legitimate reasons to research, and don't accidentally access patient information they have no legitimate reason to access.

I hope what I wrote makes sense.

You did. And I get you.  It's my opinion that a hospital looking to deny Brooks would look up both versions(presuming they even existed) to ensure they were correct to deny Brooks' claim. That's all.

[pamme64]

I was referring to the reunion. No one confronted her about the way she meddled into Vicki's affairs in the name of "justice." I also don't recall the housewives skewering her over Heather's luncheon. Lizzie was the only one to say something to her, and it was pretty benign. Meghan did get a lot of flak from viewers, but that died down once it seemed Vicki was in fact lying. Regardless of whether Brooks was faking, it doesn't justify Meghan's behavior, IMO.

I don't know .... I would think that with your screen name, you might understand where she's coming from....   ?

 

;)

[zoeysmom]

You are right. I went back and looked. NOW will Brooks say that E got it wrong or that CoH got it wrong? I also think that the Hospital would see David B Ayers when they were looking for a David Brooks Ayers and say something instead of denying him.

Just a thought but didn't Brooks provide an invalid patient number as well?  I am guessing but in order for Brooks to get his E paycheck he would have to provide a SSN for a 1099, so perhaps the also ran his records against his SSN.  My thought is he gave them the alleged document and contrary to other claims when doing a search for medical records they will run them a variety of ways-especially if the result comes up negative.  It is not a confidentiality violation for a medical records person to run partial names and match ups.  All conjecture and I don't think even Brooks is delusional enough to try and pull a "they ran my name incorrectly" excuse.  Of course this is a man who faked cancer. 

[freeradical]

I see they are closing the forum in the am and I must say it is always interesting hearing the many points of view on this site. My husband always says it seems like a smart forum when I read comments to him. See you on the next topic!

Edited November 11, 2015 by freeradical

[freeradical]

I was referring to the reunion. No one confronted her about the way she meddled into Vicki's affairs in the name of "justice." I also don't recall the housewives skewering her over Heather's luncheon. Lizzie was the only one to say something to her, and it was pretty benign. Meghan did get a lot of flak from viewers, but that died down once it seemed Vicki was in fact lying. Regardless of whether Brooks was faking, it doesn't justify Meghan's behavior, IMO.

And one more time for good measure. I agree one hundred percent with you!

I forgot to add I fully believe Meghan got the St. Louis Cardinals "Jimmy Baseball" pass from Andy because none of the shit she pulled got addressed at all. Why would Jim, Jim Edmonds even have been on the couch? It served no purpose except for Andy LOVES Jimmy!

Edited November 11, 2015 by freeradical

[Scrambled Fog]

A healthcare worker cannot go on a fishing expedition through patient records hoping to confirm someone is or isn't a patient by entering in multiple spellings and renditions of a maybe patient's name.

[breezy424]

You did. And I get you.  It's my opinion that a hospital looking to deny Brooks would look up both versions(presuming they even existed) to ensure they were correct to deny Brooks' claim. That's all.

Absolutely!  No hospital of the caliber of City of Hope is just going to do a simple search.  They are going to cross the 't's' and dot the 'i's' before they make any declaration like they did today.  I have a feeling that old Brooks is just going to fade into the sunset with revealing to media outlets proof of his cancer.  He may have fooled some love interests for a time but eventually even they realized his scam.  Unfortunately, Brooks sees himself as quite the 'smart' person - probably because of all the bs he's spat out in the past and got away with - but didn't realize that the rest of the world isn't enamored by his 'charms'.

 

The sad part is that I'm not totally convinced that Vicki won't go back to him.  He just seems to have something on her and she's 'that' desperate. 

[SnarkKitty]

http://www.eonline.com/news/714504/the-truth-revealed-brooks-ayers-was-never-treated-for-cancer-at-city-of-hope-hospital-spokesperson-says

 

This just in.  City of Hope says they never had a patient named David Brooks Ayers.

 

 

With that off my chest, Lisin and I have decided we have given you all ample time to discuss this, and that as its really just all of you dancing around in circles; we're not heartless, we won't pull the rug without warning. So we'll let you all get dizzy one last time... And then were locking this tomorrow morning. Because guys...it's time to let this go.

 

GOOD. Because this stopped being about does he or doesn't he a long time ago. It's ridiculously clear he doesn't otherwise he wouldn't need fake proof that falls apart, he'd have used one real irrefutable piece of proof. Everything to the contrary is ... well, simply being (quite) contrary. All the kings horses and all the straw men can't put a rational argument about this together again. 

 

Stop making me miss TWoP!

[breezy424]

A healthcare worker cannot go on a fishing expedition through patient records hoping to confirm someone is or isn't a patient by entering in multiple spellings and renditions of a maybe patient's name.

I don't think it was a 'healthcare worker' going on a fishing expedition.  This came down from administration.  An official spokesperson for the hospital would have to announce this.  As the article states, a representative for the medical center....

[WireWrap]

Just a thought but didn't Brooks provide an invalid patient number as well?  I am guessing but in order for Brooks to get his E paycheck he would have to provide a SSN for a 1099, so perhaps the also ran his records against his SSN.  My thought is he gave them the alleged document and contrary to other claims when doing a search for medical records they will run them a variety of ways-especially if the result comes up negative.  It is not a confidentiality violation for a medical records person to run partial names and match ups.  All conjecture and I don't think even Brooks is delusional enough to try and pull a "they ran my name incorrectly" excuse.  Of course this is a man who faked cancer. 

Yes, there were several problems on that bill he presented E. Two of them being the Hospitals address/logo, BOTH of which were wrong! LOL

Edited November 11, 2015 by WireWrap

[Watermelon]

A healthcare worker cannot go on a fishing expedition through patient records hoping to confirm someone is or isn't a patient by entering in multiple spellings and renditions of a maybe patient's name.

I feel like that's incorrect. What's to stop someone with the  authority to access the database from looking for an alleged person and then, to double check, put in an alternate spelling? 

 

These hypotheticals are fun :)

[Lucygirl2]

Maybe they won't lock this forum if we can heed the 2 generous warnings we have already been given & stop beating the dead horse.

 

Most of us think Brooks faked his cancer & the few that don't aren't going to be persuaded by any of us, I mean if the City of Hope saying he isn't a patient doesn't then nothing will.

 

How about if we try to play nice :)  Casseroles all around if we can!

[Silo]

I saw on E News tonight that City of Hope said David B. Ayers / David Brooks Ayers was NEVER a patient there.

E News had his documents analyzed by experts who said they were forged.

During an interview, Brooks couldn't remember the month he was supposedly diagnosed.

He also flat out refused to take a lie detector test.

Brooks has a long history of being known as a con artist. It's not like he's been some upstanding citizen this whole time.

There are a 100 pieces of evidence, both hard and circumstantial that he's lying. The guy is guilty. Period. You would have to perform some serious mental gymnastics to think otherwise.

Also, I've worked at a hospital as a health care worker. (I'm now in the private sector). You can bet your sweet ass that City of Hope checked, double checked and then triple checked to make sure that Brooks was never a patient there. Why? Because if he were, going to the media and speaking about him would not only give Brooks a reason to sue them for all they're worth, they would also get investigated and perhaps shut down for so flagrantly violating his HIPPA rights. If the hospital said he wasn't a patient there, he wasn't a patient.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Silo

[Snarky McSnarky]

Goodbye Cancergate.  Some stuff I hope to never see mentioned again in the RHOC forums:

 

NHL (Unless its the National Hockey League)

PET/CT

HIPAA
Newport Imaging

Hoag Hospital

City of Hope

Chemo

Coffee Enema

[OhGromit]

Some people are really good at ignoring reality!  You can lead a horse to water, but.... 

[zoeysmom]

A healthcare worker cannot go on a fishing expedition through patient records hoping to confirm someone is or isn't a patient by entering in multiple spellings and renditions of a maybe patient's name.

I don't think it is exactly  fishing expedition searching Ayers, David B or Ayers D Brooks or Ayers David Brooks.  I believe it would be a great disservice to Brooks, who agreed to have his records authenticated to not try all of the possible entries.  It was to Brooks advantage if every possible combination was searched.  We also don't know how sensitive the search criteria is.  Perhaps Brooks should not have agreed to the authentication.

Maybe they won't lock this forum if we can heed the 2 generous warnings we have already been given & stop beating the dead horse.

 

Most of us think Brooks faked his cancer & the few that don't aren't going to be persuaded by any of us, I mean if the City of Hope saying he isn't a patient doesn't then nothing will.

 

How about if we try to play nice :)  Casseroles all around if we can!

Are they locking the Forum or the thread?  There are two shows left in the seasons-seems odd.

[bravofan27]

Hum. If I were a medical center, to be safe, I'd just say "That is not the letterhead our center uses." or, "That is not a bill that was generated by our facility." and avoid saying anything about the patient just to be safe. In any case, he's not a patient there so he has no confidentiality agreement with them.

 

My burning question is why he lied about cancer? At first I thought it was to get into the house. Now I think it was maybe to keep his ex'es from suing him for child support. He is still insisting he has cancer, so there is reason that it is important for him to have cancer. To keep something like this going you have to have a major reason besides just being a whack job. Meghan's been right all along, so I'm going to go back and say it must be keeping the ex'es from having him arrested (again). And also from having his children think he's a slimeball too, as I'm sure he has had them extremely worried with the cancer story.

[SnarkKitty]

Goodbye Cancergate.  Some stuff I hope to never see mentioned again in the RHOC forums:

 

NHL (Unless its the National Hockey League)

PET/CT

HIPAA

Newport Imaging

Hoag Hospital

City of Hope

Chemo

Coffee Enema

 

Casserole!

[Silo]

As far as whether Vicki knew...she said on the reunion she was at the City of Hope for four hours while Brooks was getting chemo. And described the waiting room.

[zoeysmom]

As far as whether Vicki knew...she said on the reunion she was at the City of Hope for four hours while Brooks was getting chemo. And described the waiting room.

Her description of the infusion room-the one with chairs in a row.  There is definitely something wrong with Vicki's center to keep up the lies I guess it was a good idea after all to get wasted on Xanax.   So if we go off Vicki's statements she had to have known since last October.  It is not as if you can drive yourself to chemo and City of Hope is over an hour away from Vicki's house.  So someone had to be taking him. 

[Scrambled Fog]

I don't think it is exactly fishing expedition searching Ayers, David B or Ayers D Brooks or Ayers David Brooks. I believe it would be a great disservice to Brooks, who agreed to have his records authenticated to not try all of the possible entries. It was to Brooks advantage if every possible combination was searched. We also don't know how sensitive the search criteria is. Perhaps Brooks should not have agreed to the authentication.

Are they locking the Forum or the thread? There are two shows left in the seasons-seems odd.

This is the search criteria-

Quote

Patient identification (PID), according to The Joint Commission’s (TJC) National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) 01.01.01, (Improve the accuracy of patient identification), (paraphrasing),it is using two identifiers, such as name, date of birth, medical record number, etc., when providing care, treatment or services.This is to ensure that you have the right person before administering healthcare services, especially at critical times when patient safety is at risk. Patient identification process – TJC, through NPSG 01.01.01, implies that this is how you identify a patient when performing a specific task associated with patient care. The contention of this author is that the PID process encompasses correctly identifying the patient at all critical points where patient safety is at risk. This spans the time from the moment the patient enters the healthcare facility, to the moment the patient

leaves. This includes not only ordering and administering medication, blood and blood products, lab specimens, and other treatments or procedures, (and all critical points within those processes), but also registering the patient when entering the facility, when care of the patient is being transferred to another provider (patient handoff), and when the patient is discharged or transferred to another facility outside of the current healthcare system. The PID process includes patient identification at all points of care that puts patient safety at risk or jeopardizes the integrity of patient data within the EHR.

End Quote

http://digitalcommons.ohsu.edu/etd/905/

----

Edited November 11, 2015 by Scrambled Fog

[WireWrap]

As far as whether Vicki knew...she said on the reunion she was at the City of Hope for four hours while Brooks was getting chemo. And described the waiting room.

She also made up the lie about Terry/IV after his supposed first chemo in October for sympathy. That was well before filming began, well before anyone started asking questions....she knew then IMO, otherwise there was no need to lie like she did.

[OhGromit]

Why on earth would City of Hope issue a statement saying they've never treated a David Brooks Ayers, if they've actually treated him, but under the name David B. Ayers?  THEY WOULDN'T.  Because doing so would violate the rights of an actual patient-- Brooks aka David Brooks Ayers aka David B Ayers.  They're not going to issue a public statement without making sure this actual guy is not a patient being treated under the name David B Ayers, something a kindergartner would know to check, for Chuy's sakes!!!  The only reason City of Hope can publicize this information is because David Brooks Ayers/ David B Ayers is a NON-PATIENT, such that HIPAA provisions are not triggered.  They owe no fiduciary duty to someone with whom they have no treater-patient relationship.  

 

ANYHOW I just cannot with continuing to argue about the truthfulness or non-truthfulness of you know what in the face of utterly obvious you know what.  The guy was lying.  

Edited November 11, 2015 by OhGromit

[breezy424]

This is the search criteria-

Quote

Patient identification (PID), according to The Joint Commission’s (TJC) National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) 01.01.01, (Improve the accuracy of patient identification), (paraphrasing),it is using two identifiers, such as name, date of birth, medical record number, etc., when providing care, treatment or services.This is to ensure that you have the right person before administering healthcare services, especially at critical times when patient safety is at risk. Patient identification process – TJC, through NPSG 01.01.01, implies that this is how you identify a patient when performing a specific task associated with patient care. The contention of this author is that the PID process encompasses correctly identifying the patient at all critical points where patient safety is at risk. This spans the time from the moment the patient enters the healthcare facility, to the moment the patient

leaves. This includes not only ordering and administering medication, blood and blood products, lab specimens, and other treatments or procedures, (and all critical points within those processes), but also registering the patient when entering the facility, when care of the patient is being transferred to another provider (patient handoff), and when the patient is discharged or transferred to another facility outside of the current healthcare system. The PID process includes patient identification at all points of care that puts patient safety at risk or jeopardizes the integrity of patient data within the EHR.

End Quote

http://digitalcommons.ohsu.edu/etd/905/

----

So what's your point?  Because previously, you've stated that a health care worker wouldn't research different legal names, etc.  Sorry but I'm just trying to understand.

[zoeysmom]

This is the search criteria-

Quote

Patient identification (PID), according to The Joint Commission’s (TJC) National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) 01.01.01, (Improve the accuracy of patient identification), (paraphrasing),it is using two identifiers, such as name, date of birth, medical record number, etc., when providing care, treatment or services.This is to ensure that you have the right person before administering healthcare services, especially at critical times when patient safety is at risk. Patient identification process – TJC, through NPSG 01.01.01, implies that this is how you identify a patient when performing a specific task associated with patient care. The contention of this author is that the PID process encompasses correctly identifying the patient at all critical points where patient safety is at risk. This spans the time from the moment the patient enters the healthcare facility, to the moment the patient

leaves. This includes not only ordering and administering medication, blood and blood products, lab specimens, and other treatments or procedures, (and all critical points within those processes), but also registering the patient when entering the facility, when care of the patient is being transferred to another provider (patient handoff), and when the patient is discharged or transferred to another facility outside of the current healthcare system. The PID process includes patient identification at all points of care that puts patient safety at risk or jeopardizes the integrity of patient data within the EHR.

End Quote

http://digitalcommons.ohsu.edu/etd/905/

----

You quoted patient care aand identifying the patient.  This is about finding a medical record or record of a patient ever having used services.  I still say walk in with a check to pay the alleged $30,000.00 balance and they will spend significant time trying to find where to apply it. 

[zoeysmom]

She also made up the lie about Terry/IV after his supposed first chemo in October for sympathy. That was well before filming began, well before anyone started asking questions....she knew then IMO, otherwise there was no need to lie like she did.

I am certainly going to be listening if Andy asks about Vicki and Brooks relationship.  It seems their problems came up in March-what am I saying - Brooks claimed that is went they went to a Reality TV counselor.  I am wondering if they kept the lie up to get Brooks out of filming with Tamra and the inevitable blow up.

[Scrambled Fog]

You quoted patient care and identifying the patient. This is about finding a medical record or record of a patient ever having used services. I still say walk in with a check to pay the alleged $30,000.00 balance and they will spend significant time trying to find where to apply it.

To conduct a search of patient records you need two identifiers: the patient's name accurately spelled, and it must match the spelling in the patient's chart, and another identifier like DOB. Both identifiers have to be accurate and match the information in the patient's chart otherwise your search will pull up Zero results. Zero.

A system which is compliant w/ HIPAA, HITECH, and JCAHO laws and regulations will not pull up near matches.

----

Man. I quoted the wrong post. I meant to quote Breezy424's post.

Sorry. My apologies.

Time for me to go to bed.

Goodnight everyone!

----

Edited November 11, 2015 by Scrambled Fog

[OhGromit]

You know what, everyone, as I look around, I'm realizing the world looks very flat, except where it is bumpy!  All these people claiming the world is "round" are just believing a lot of nonsense from the so-called book publishers, aka "media"!!  I'm not going to believe the world is round until I have HARD EVIDENCE.  When someone puts the actual world into my actual hand, and I can see with my OWN TWO EYES that it is a round thing, and compare it to a nice round shiny PENNY, I will be HOLDING OUT and insisting the world is a flat, sometimes bumpy, sort of a thing... because I don't believe in these crazy assumptions and inferences that have led all you flibberty-gibbets and ignoramuses to conclude the world is round!  Unlike all of you, I demand REAL EVIDENCE!!!  

 

I'm going to bed!!  

Edited November 11, 2015 by OhGromit

[smores]

Except that they can do searches with various parts of the name.  I know because I have an incredibly common name, both first and last.  So, many times I will have a medical facility say they want to find me by last name, then try to expand to my first name when there are too many results by my last name.  Even adding in my birthdate, I sometimes have to give my middle name to differentiate myself from other patients.  But, it's usually a few searches, and I pop up in each of them, but it's too many "me" to narrow down to the specific "me" They could easily search Ayers and his birthdate and then narrow down any hits from there. 

[kanona29]

This thread is depressing as hell because based on some these posts, it clearly illustrates how an idiot such as Brooks could easily convince someone not only that he has cancer, but also convince said person to become a part of his lies and schemes to the point of absolutely ruining their reputation, friendships, and businesses. And somehow convince said person that doing so is no big deal and quite an okay thing to do.

 

Some of these posts scare the crap out of me....I mean c'mon...both Stevie Wonder AND Ray Charles can see this foolishness for what it is. A big bucket of lies to remain relevant and garnish sympathy from the audience.

[OhGromit]

This thread is depressing as hell because based on some these posts, it clearly illustrates how an idiot such as Brooks could easily convince someone not only that he has cancer, but also convince said person to become a part of his lies and schemes to the point of absolutely ruining their reputation, friendships, and businesses. And somehow convince said person that doing so is no big deal and quite an okay thing to do.

 

Some of these posts scare the crap out of me....I mean c'mon...both Stevie Wonder AND Ray Charles can see this foolishness for what it is. A big bucket of lies to remain relevant and garnish sympathy from the audience.

 

Agree. 

[DebbieM4]

Ummm, because they were worried about Vicki. This is a guy who has a history of lying about cancer to other women, something I have no doubt that Heather, Tamra and Shannon already knew BEFORE his latest cancer/NHL claim.

 

I didn't see them even remotely being worried about Vicki until the reunion when they suddenly claimed that was the case.  

 

Up until then, they relentlessly gossiped about the situation, talked behind her back, and Meghan in particular - who certainly doesn't care one iota about Vicki - crossed the line of decency over & over by sticking her nose where it most definitely did not belong.   It was sport to them, a game that they enjoyed playing.  They clearly took delight in sharing new information, all wide-eyed, as though they were watching some kind of mystery unfold.  It was entertainment for them, and a girl-bonding thing.  

 

I think they liked the juiciness of the situation.  I don't believe for one minute that they were worried about Vicki.  Other than Shannon, who had one or two moments of concern, they never acted that way at all.  Most of what they did was gossip behind her back, and Shannon was in on that too.  Gossip for gossip's sake.  Not out of worry and not out of concern.

These women are not concerned about each other.

It's all a big game to see who can come out on top and who can get the most air time.

 

Exactly!!!

Edited November 11, 2015 by DebbieM4

[Satchels of gold]

Here's the deal.

What is being lost is that REGARDLESS of whether or not Brooks lied about cancer...he's a DOUCHE CANOE. Always has been, always will be.

With that off my chest, Lisin and I have decided we have given you all ample time to discuss this, and that as its really just all of you dancing around in circles; we're not heartless, we won't pull the rug without warning. So we'll let you all get dizzy one last time...

And then were locking this tomorrow morning. Because guys...it's time to let this go.

never mind Edited November 11, 2015 by nc socialworker

[zoeysmom]

Heather McDonald and the B-Side Blogs weigh in on Vicki's future on the show-the discussion starts at about the 30 minute mark.  http://www.podcastone.com/pg/jsp/program/episode.jsp?programID=781&pid=563191  All three of them think Vicki is a shoe in for a mighty return next season.

[Mya Stone]

And thus ended the "Does Brooks have cancer?" endless circle of discussion. Not with a bang, but a whimper. (Seriously guys. This topic has made me audibly whimper.)