This visit was scheduled for 9:20 but began closer to 9:50. The main topic of concern was what is going on behind tooth 15, though I was very interested in further exploring what I’ve seen in the extraction cavity of tooth 14. I don’t think I knew at this point that the extraction cavity had filled with bone, as a dentist later told me, and so any implanted object would now likely be embedded in bony tissue.
The notes of this visit contain inaccuracies, such as saying that I’m in the process of getting “hard copies” of my x-rays (I said “higher resolution”) and omissions. It is not irrelevant, for example, that the oral maxillofacial surgeon who “was under the impression this was a bony prominence or a soft tissue swelling and not an implanted device” was Dr Patel, the same surgeon who did the tooth 14 extraction, meaning if there is in fact an implant in the extraction cavity, he almost certainly placed it there.
Regarding a potential biopsy of the swollen area behind tooth 15, Dr Warrington writes “I did express concern that if a biopsy is performed and negative she may have further suspicions that it was not done appropriately or there was a sampling error. The patient is clear at that having a biopsy would provide her reassurance that there is nothing there.” It sounds like what he is saying in his notes is that if a biopsy comes back negative for everything, I’ve promised to accept that answer and not push for further tests, but in the conversation itself, it seemed like it was an open question, if the biopsy comes back “tissue only” what next?
In reality, what I ideally want to do is to try to use wireless frequency detector and see if we can pick up signals from that implant and discover where it is, precisely, rather than just poking around.
The notes state that “She is expressed concern (sic) that the suturing related to her prior tooth removal appeared unusual and haphazard.” At some point, when I discussed the tooth 14 issue with Dr Warrington, I mentioned the “cat’s cradle” suturing. The reason why I felt this might be notable, is because I thought it might have been done that way to prevent exfoliation of the implant.
Dr Warrington writes “Erica (sic) has concerns about CT scans given the radiation used. She would prefer to avoid this.” I don’t recall hearing if I said anything to Dr Warrington about my concern with CT scan being radiation related, or what those concerns were specifically. In fact I have multiple concerns with getting a CT scan at this time, with this team of doctors, regarding this issue. First, if all these doctors initially “missed” the patch shaped implant on a regular dental x-ray, what could I expect from a CT scan? Second, the idea that the CT scan will identify a bony growth is from my point of view, starting with the wrong premise in mind – that this is a bony growth. Third, based on what I saw happen to Chris, I don’t feel I can trust the doctors or others who might access medical imaging covertly not to use the information they get from the images maliciously. This is not paranoia but concern based on the patterns I’ve seen. Would you give a killer your address and keys?
A couple of hours after this visit, I went to Roots Dental to see if I could repeat the results I’d gotten in the dental x-ray – in other words, if I took a second x-ray of the same location, would I then also see the patch shape?
web page updated 25 August 2022