Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Full statement archive
All researched public statements, by video
All 1722 timestamped statements, grouped under the 629 videos they came from and ordered by the strongest pattern-relevance tier that video carries. Expand a video to read its quotes in playback order.
What these tiers are: “Strong”, “Moderate” and “Context” are this project’s research classification of how closely a public statement bears on the documented filing-restriction indicators. They are not judicial findings, not an adjudication of anything said in a video, and not a determination that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant — no court in this dataset has made that determination. Court findings, party statements and research classifications are kept in separate evidence layers throughout this site; see Methodology.
How a tier is assigned.Strong — the statement names a tracked case or dispute and describes filing conduct of the kind the indicators document: repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision, or filing framed as imposing cost on the opponent. Moderate — it bears on litigation conduct or chronology in a tracked dispute, but the case link is tentative or the statement describes something other than the speaker’s own filing behaviour. Context — general commentary with no specific tracked case identified.
What the factor labels are. Each statement is also labelled with the filing-restriction factor its own words describe, so the reason for a classification is visible rather than implied. Most factors correspond to a criterion recorded in the indicator data, and the three that do not are marked as such there — a filing that has only been threatened has no docket to record, and an allegation about a court is the speaker’s characterisation rather than a recorded criterion. Repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision and cost imposition as stated motive are the three that can qualify a statement as Strong; threatened or prospective filing, self-reported filing volume, filing announced or confirmed, adverse outcome described and judicial or forum bias alleged record related but weaker signals. A statement that describes no filing conduct carries no factor badge. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
Quotations on this page are excerpts: a quotation ending in an ellipsis is shortened here for length. The full wording, and the reason recorded for its pattern-relevance tier, are on the video’s own research page — follow the ¶ permalink on any card.
Videos 251–275 of 629 · 58 statements on this page · page 11 of 26
Lawyer says DON’T USE STATE FARMModerate pattern relevanceDecember 13, 20254 statements
And if a lawyer's calling them out, you know it's bad because lawyers are the worst show sellouts for big business. They're always trying to steal money from people. So, if he's saying it, you know it's the truth. Please, if you have State…
General commentary on the legal profession, offered as the reason an adverse-to-industry statement by a lawyer is credible. It bears on the speaker's stated view of lawyers, which is background to a litigation history conducted pro se.
My car was total two months ago. still haven't been paid for it.
The pre-filing statement of the grievance that became the tracked action against the named insurer, with an interval that matches the docketed accident date and a six-day lead on the filing.
And I had a home insurance claim where the underground electric line to my house failed and they wouldn't pay to relocate the electric meter. They wouldn't help at all. So, anything State Farm related, I've never been paid for.
A second, factually distinct claim against the same tracked defendant, described in enough detail to be matched to a docket: a home policy, a failed underground electric service line and a refusal to fund relocation of the electric meter.
Don't use State Farm insurance under any condition. They won't pay you for the most horrific things.
A public call to avoid a named tracked defendant, published six days before the action against it was filed. Recorded for completeness of the pre-filing record.
I have a very unique objective experience of infraorbital implants that I don't think anyone else has because I've actually had orbital implants put in and then removed.
A first-person statement of the surgical sequence, orbital implants placed and later removed. No court, case, insurer, doctor or lawyer is named anywhere in the video.
This was me before with orbital implants, still botched, not fixed, eyes too close together. And then up here in the upper left is me after getting the orbital implants removed and having my uh medial wall fixed.
Dates a medial wall repair to on or before the publication date and describes the before and after images. It asserts nothing about any docket.
More than I've spent here the whole time. Way more. I mean, if I came back here next year for another surgery, I'd want to do a lot more research and go to like the best of the best places.
The most consequential ambiguity in this slice. Said in passing, it implies the ~one-month Japan trip these three videos document was, at least in part, a surgery trip, and that a further surgery was contemplated for the following year. He also reports symptoms in this same video — [5:23] "my vision is so [ __ ] up I can't really see", [25:18] "My eyes hurt, man" — and voices staff reacting to his appearance at [1:35]. Its research value is that it bears directly on the medical chronology behind the eye-surgery dispute group while naming no surgeon, clinic, country of past treatment, case or proceeding. The same remark appears in p91EE3RyKok at [3:12].
but we'll never know cuz ours rotted in a cargo container thanks to the uh the lovely Jewish people at All Forwarding. Let me know how that goes.
The strongest finding of this video's research, found in a video with no litigation framing anywhere else. In a 34-minute video about a steak dinner, he names the freight forwarder and the loss that the tracked litigation arises from. The dispute-group record defines the All-Ways / wagyu shipment group as litigation arising from the failed 2025 wagyu shipment described in the federal All-Ways order, and C015 (Tufano v. All Ways Forwarding, Lackawanna 2025-05469) and C057 (Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al, M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01558) are the same originating action before and after removal. Both were live on the 2025-12-12 publish date — C057 did not close until 2026-07-13. The statement is a party's own account of the underlying loss, offered as an aside while pricing a restaurant meal. It names no case, no court, no docket, no judge and no filing, and describes no filing conduct of any kind, so it cannot be Strong under the published rubric no matter how squarely it lands on the dispute. A content caution for any further quotation: the sentence attributes the loss to "the lovely Jewish people at All Forwarding." That is an ethnic characterisation of a named commercial counterparty and a tracked defendant list (All-Ways Forwarding, and its chief executive Solomon Weber). It is transcribed verbatim under the verbatim-quotation rule and is not subject to redaction under the research privacy rule — a business and a party named in a professional capacity is public court-record material — but it should not be quoted onto a public page without its framing being made explicit.
It wouldn't be worth it though cuz I'm shadowbanned and censored and I don't get paid for stuff.
A short, dated assertion of three distinct platform harms — shadowbanning, censorship, and non-payment — offered as the reason he will not pursue a video series he has just spent a minute describing. Recorded because business-harm-by-platform is a recurring grievance on this channel and because the same claim has surfaced inside other food videos in this archive. It names no platform. The word "shadowbanned" is being said on YouTube, about YouTube-adjacent economics, but the transcript never says so, and inferring the platform would be supplying a fact the video does not contain.
And if you think that's bad, the doctor that botched me filed a restraining order against me. How comical is that? How outrageous is that? I'm lying in bed in pain, half blind, butchered by this guy, and he files a restraining order that…
Asserts a court proceeding not presently recorded in the tracker, a restraining-order petition brought against the speaker by the surgeon he says botched him, heard and refused. Recorded as what the speaker said; no docket has been located for it.
All this stuff happening to Whistland Diesel, I've had the same thing, but worse. They just issued the gag order outright, which is a violation of my freedom of speech. It's actually against the law. You cannot receive a gag order unless…
A first-person account of a speech-restricting order entered against him, which he frames as unlawful because he was not found guilty in court. The legal characterisation is his own, not a court's.
Moderate pattern relevanceAdverse outcome describedJudicial or forum bias alleged00:25
After the default was filed, the judge just issued a gag order and said, "I can no longer like say that this guy steals my research." Basically, everything that I was saying, which I thought was completely truthful and honest and just…
The densest statement in the video: it ties the order to a default and states its operative content, that he may no longer say a particular person steals his research, which is the substance of the injunction recorded on the tracked docket. He also calls the judge crooked, which is his allegation and not a finding.
Moderate pattern relevanceFiling announced or confirmedJudicial or forum bias alleged00:46
But who's going to police these judges? The higher court. I have filed multiple appeals and there's really something to say about how power-hungry and demonic some of these people are.
A self-report that he has filed multiple appeals from the order just described, framed as an appeal to a higher court to police judges. The tracked record shows an appeal pending in that action, though the transcript identifies no case.
the botched cases and bad cases are removed because these search engines and these people at Google are just as guilty as these doctors. They should also be in jail and in prison for uh for for being responsible for botching so many…
States the review-suppression theory that sits behind the tracked actions against Google, that negative and botched-case results are removed, and does so before the later of those actions was filed.
why I was botched. I already paid over $30,000 for my eye procedures. And then literal day before the surgery, the doctor said, "Oh, you should do a two-stage decompression, and it's going to be $9,000 more dollars." So, we charged my…
The underlying factual grievance of the eye-surgery dispute stated with figures: a prior outlay of over 30,000 dollars, a 9,000 dollar addition charged the day before surgery, and one procedure identified as the cause of the injury.
Some will pretend that to help. A lot of them will try to drain your financial resources even further. You'll go to lawyers that'll suck your wallet dry and not actually help you.
General commentary on how lawyers treat injured claimants, with no firm, case or forum named.
Been a while since we've done a vlog because I was in Japan getting two surgeries.
a medical-chronology fixed point. It places two surgeries abroad before 2025-12-09, which bears on the damages narrative in the tracked eye-surgery dispute and dates the Japan trip that several other videos in this block cover. He names no surgeon, no procedure, no clinic and no case.
A lot of negative things have been happening this year. I'm still dealing with a lot of chargebacks and we're still in a pretty rough spot financially, mainly due to me not getting insurance payments even for things like my regular car…
he states a live, unresolved insurance grievance over a car crash ten days before filing suit over that exact claim, and the "2 months ago" marker lands within a week of the accident date pleaded in the complaint. It is a pre-filing statement of the grievance: he describes the loss and the insurer's non-payment but announces no filing and threatens none, which is why no filing-conduct factor is claimed. The chargeback half of the same sentence is the other recurring grievance on this channel.
like a painkiller. This has helped me a lot with getting through uh my eye pain when doctors haven't been helping me.
continuing eye pain and a general grievance against unnamed doctors, stated while selling a product. Bears on the damages narrative in the tracked medical dispute; describes no filing conduct and identifies no one.
If you guys missed the memo, we're here in Japan getting eye surgery. Well, we got eye surgery.
The first six seconds of a video titled after noodles state that the trip exists because of eye surgery. The eye-surgery grievance is the subject of the Taban dispute group, the largest in the tracker, and the Japan revision surgeries are already recorded in several other researched statements from this channel. The tense matters: "we got eye surgery" — past — places this recording after the procedure(s), not before.
I'm guessing in like the more touristy [music] areas of Tokyo. Uh but that's not where I'm staying because of my surgery. I chose a place to stay that was just by the doctor's office.
Corroborates the length and seriousness of the medical trip from an incidental angle — his hotel was selected for proximity to the treating doctor, which is why the video's restaurants are all in one commercial district rather than the tourist areas. Restated at 36:19: "I've only stayed in an area close to my doctor." Useful to a chronology pass because it establishes that the whole Japan food series was shot inside one small radius over one continuous stay, rather than being assembled from separate trips.
is. So that's kind of strange. That's has not happened to me once before in Japan, and I've been here for like three weeks now.
A hard duration marker, and the reason it is quoted rather than merely noted: it is the only statement in the Japan block found so far that fixes how long the stay had run at the moment of recording. Paired with "we're leaving tomorrow" at 31:35 it brackets the recording to roughly the final 48 hours of a stay that had by then lasted about three weeks. See ## Research Notes for what that does and does not license.
if you guys haven't seen the other Japan cuisine stuff, uh, well, I won't I won't talk too much about that cuz this video is probably being posted after those.
This is a methodological finding, not a litigation one, and it is the most valuable thing in the file. The batch addendum records — as a caution — that this channel has published trip videos out of recording order. Here the speaker says so himself, in the middle of a video, while it is being filmed: he is describing sibling videos as things a viewer will have already seen even though they were filmed before this one is finished. It converts a working assumption into an on-camera statement, and it means publish-date ordering across the Japan block is not recording order and must not be used as one.
If you have State Farm insurance, immediately switch to someone else. If something happens, they will not pay you. My car was totaled two months ago now, and I still have not been paid for my low mileage BMW. They offered less than half of…
A public grievance against the speaker's insurer over an unpaid total-loss claim on a BMW, naming the carrier, the vehicle and the valuation dispute and dating the loss to about two months earlier.
And I'm not sure it's specific to the State Farm agency. I think it's just State Farm in general because the agency you sign up with does not handle the actual quote or the uh the claim. So across the board, whoever is in the state form…
Distinguishes the local agency the speaker signed up with from the carrier, and locates the fault with the carrier's claims department across the board.
So, ice cream for bears is just another one of my ideas that's been stolen. We started selling honey ice cream with the highest quality raw ingredients on Frankie Strange Meat. And another one of these corporate chill industry plants took…
States the underlying commercial grievance against a party who became a named defendant about four and a half months later, in his own words and on a dated public record. No filing, court, case or lawyer is mentioned.
Now, keep in mind, this isn't a certified organic product. So, as far as we know, he's using conventional feed lot eggs. And why would you be putting skim milk in an ice cream product? So, there's definitely some questionable sourcing on…
Product-labelling and sourcing allegations against the same later-defendant, hedged in the transcript itself. Records what the speaker alleged and when.
Base bodyworks is expensive because it's backed by corporate billionaires that control the media. And when they can force every single person in America to see their product, they're sure as hell going to have plenty of customers to buy…
A dated public statement of the commercial grievance against a company that became a named defendant 80 days later, framed in market-power terms that run parallel to the theory recorded for the tracked cases. No court, case, filing or lawyer is named.
Instead, you have these industry shill corporate jerkoffs that are making tens of millions of dollars off of overpriced products that are inferior, if not just overpriced compared to the rest of the market. So I really have to stop…
The closing line states that his response is to stop supporting the company and explore other options, with no mention of any court. Recorded so a reader comparing this to the litigation that followed can see what remedy he named at this date.
If something goes wrong, if you get botched, you will not get disability. You will not be compensated in court and you will not receive pain medication.
A general statement of futility about the courts and the disability system, addressed to viewers as advice. It is the framing under which he then reports his own two filings later in the same video, and it names nothing.
Moderate pattern relevanceFiling announced or confirmed00:30
I filed for disability with New York State. It's been 2 years. I've had to sue the Social Security Administration. I have an active lawsuit against the doctor that botched me and they're just dragging it on and on.
Two separate filings confirmed in his own words, one of them against a defendant he names verbatim. The Social Security suit maps to the tracked New York action, which was filed 2025-07-02 and pending at publication; the doctor is never named, so the two California actions are a dataset-derived inference. The framing that he has had to sue, and the complaint that the doctor's case is being drawn out, are both worth preserving as spoken.
And the person I entrusted to finish the roof while I was getting eye surgery dropped the ball. If I knew this was going to happen, I would have just postponed the surgery and finish the roof because uh this is a disaster.
Places an eye surgery in the window immediately before 2025-12-02 by explaining that the roof work was left with someone else while he was having it, which cross-dates the Pennsylvania property thread against the eye-surgery thread.
I basically spend most of the day lying in bed on pain medication because of the botched orbital surgery. And every second outside of that is usually spent on court filings and court papers because no lawyers will help me. And it's pretty…
A self-report of filing volume described rather than counted: his waking hours go to court papers, and the floor of his office is covered with his legal filings. He also gives his own reason for proceeding without counsel, which bears on the pro se coding that runs through most of the tracked cases.
Context pattern relevanceJudicial or forum bias alleged00:29
And even if you do things legitimate by the book, these judges don't play by the rules. They just throw out your cases.
General commentary on judicial conduct, framed in the generic second person rather than about any identified case or judge. It is an allegation of bias recorded as his own words and expressly not a judicial finding.
And out of the hundreds and thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen from me by other businesses, probably millions at this point, all of my ideas that have been copied and the millions of dollars that have been caused…
A single sentence summarising the net result across his whole litigation programme as at the publication date: no recovery at all, against claimed losses in three categories he litigates separately. It is a claim about outcome, and no court or ruling is named.
It's been a very difficult year here at Frankie Strange Meat. I mean, obviously, despite my botched eye surgery and all the medical issues, we had the Chinese company scam us on the potato chip manufacturer come that still hasn't been…
A single dated statement enumerating grievances that correspond to several tracked dispute groups at once. Its value is chronological: it fixes 2025-11-30 as a date on which the speaker publicly characterised all of them as unresolved. The USDA is the only tracked party named outright.
Then we had the refrigeration failure in the summer and the insurance company never paid me the $40,000 for the lost product.
A pre-filing statement of the insurance grievance: it gives the loss amount, the cause and the alleged non-payment on a dated public record 45 days before the insurance action was filed. The insurer is not named in the transcript, which says only the insurance company.
Another reason you never want to get plastic surgery in America, and we're really talking about Beverly Hills because that's the center for plastic surgery. And this is pretending that all of the lawyers aren't just going to jerk you…
General commentary on plaintiff-side lawyers in the plastic-surgery malpractice market, with no firm and no individual named. Beverly Hills is used here to mean that market and not the courthouse of the same name.
The highest amount of money you can be compensated for in a non-death case is $350,000. And if you die, it's $500,000. How insane is that? The only reason I'm able to sue for way more is because I have a business. And I'm basically saying,…
The speaker's own damages theory for a California medical claim: he describes the statutory cap and says his business losses are the route by which he can claim past it, quantified at hundreds of millions of dollars over his lifetime. The cap figures are his characterisation of California law, not anything awarded to him, and no case, court or defendant is named.
Maybe when we come back, if we come back next year for another surgery, maybe we can do that. Uh it was just it was like hard to schedule a reservation. I'm only here for a few more days. I don't want to deal with it. If I was here another…
Two dated first-person facts in one sentence, both bearing on the research and neither framed as litigation. (1) A further surgery is contemplated for the following year, and the return to Japan is what would occasion it — implying the trip these three videos document was at least in part a surgery trip. The identical remark appears in g6y8MNIXjM4 at [27:09], recorded a few days later in the same trip. (2) He describes himself as "completely broke" on 2025-11-29, the earliest such self-report in this slice; he says it again a month later in qEaGYuM0olo at [1:23] ("I completely broke right now"). It names no surgeon, clinic, case, court, docket or filing and describes no filing conduct.
Moderate pattern relevanceJudicial or forum bias alleged00:00
Beverly Hills. What is the significance of Beverly Hills in surgery? Think of the court system. There's a whole state court system with multiple Los Angeles branches. This whole system is set up, the judges are bought and paid for. The…
Though framed as commentary on an industry, it names Beverly Hills and the Los Angeles state court system — the forum of C101/C102 (Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al., Superior Court of California, LA County; both case numbers carry the SMCV Santa Monica prefix). Less case-specific than the other two videos, but not forum-neutral either.
you're going to pay a lawyer with money, and that lawyer is going to screw you over. He's going to extract as much money as possible, pretending to be your friend, pretending to help you.
Previews the former-counsel theme of the Starowicz / arbitration / Davis litigation that later videos ("THIS LAWYER RUINED MY FAMILY," "My Own Lawyer THREATENED ME!!!," "This Lawyer should be DISBARRED") are built around, stated here as a general proposition four months before those videos. Useful as the earliest located articulation of that grievance in generic form.
all of these judges and lawyers and doctors should be put in prison just for supporting the system and all being in on it.
A categorical statement about three professions, notable as one of the broadest in this research — the grievance is not confined to the parties he is litigating against. The "all being in on it" phrasing continues the "in the club" language already documented across “Tufano v. Taban et al 3:25-cv-00011”, “Why you CANT WIN a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit!!!” and “All-Ways forwarding gets their Reviews cleaned up AFTER RUINING $20,000 OF MY MEAT”.
And there's a million reasons that you shouldn't get plastic surgery. That's just one of them.
This is the stated campaign from “Corrupt Court System is a PATHETIC JOKE” being carried out — that video (2025-12-21, three weeks later) says he will "cost these plastic surgery lunatics tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars by deterring people from getting plastic surgery." Here the deterrence framing is the video's explicit sign-off. Statement of intent and execution, in that order, both now in this research.
You know who also should be in prison? And I'm not joking. The executives and higherups at these review sites. Whether it's Google or Real Self, even Yelp, all of these plastic surgery review sites and recommendations. Even the moderators…
The transcript names tracked defendants outright rather than by role: two search and review platforms and a forum, which are the defendants in the tracked platform disputes. One platform he names, Yelp, is not a party to any tracked case. The opening word also indicates the clip continues earlier content whose subject cannot be recovered from it.
All of these people should be in prison because they are being paid behind the scenes by doctors to promote positive reviews and censor bad reviews. And by doing this, they are literally sending the general population to these butchers.
The mechanism alleged, platforms paid by doctors to boost positive reviews and suppress negative ones, is the substantive theory of the tracked platform disputes and ties them to the underlying surgery grievance. It remains an unadjudicated party allegation, not a court finding.
that was actually where I went in right after the surgery. I had stumbled down there. Had two bowls of udon noodles and then went to my hotel to pass out. So. And there's also the 7-Eleven right here down the corner. So, technically, if…
this is the plainest of many statements in this video establishing that the Japan trip was built around eye surgery — a surgery had already happened before this vlog begins, the hotel was booked for proximity to the eye clinic, and a revision procedure is scheduled for the Thursday after filming ends. See Research Notes: this answers, from the record, an open question the wave-1 addendum flagged as unresolved.
I feel like my eyes kind of look the same, dude. If not a very It's like when we had the reconstruction in May they looked maybe 20% better and then this guy did the reconstruction. They look what? Maybe 10% better?
C024, Tufano v. United Healthcare (Lackawanna 2025-09609, the United Healthcare dispute), pleads that United Healthcare denied coverage for a medically necessary orbital reconstruction surgery on 2025-05-08, with $41,286.36 in costs. This is the speaker, seven months later, calling that procedure "the reconstruction in May" and rating its result at "maybe 20% better" — a first-person account of the outcome of the exact surgery the case is about. He does not mention the insurer, the denial, the cost or the case. The value is corroborative, not evidentiary as to the insurance claim.
Cuz this is kind of our last resort. Like I don't know what I can do after this. I've spent all my money, spoke to every doctor that'll help me, so if this guy doesn't want to do more then I don't know what to do.
a first-person statement of exhausted personal funds and exhausted medical options arising from the eye injury. It is his own spend, not an opponent's, so it is not Cost imposition as stated motive. It is the financial backdrop against which C023/C024/C025 were filed three to four weeks later.
So, I have to go back home all those insurance claims. I still haven't got paid for my car. I have the roof unca- the roof, dude. [ __ ] might not have a roof for 4 months. Started [ __ ] We couldn't get the roof finished with I should I…
a pre-filing statement of the grievances behind three Lackawanna cases filed 9 to 25 days after this video was published, made without naming a single insurer, court or intention to sue — - "I still haven't got paid for my car" → C025 Tufano v. State Farm (2025-10242, filed 2025-12-19, i.e. 25 days after publication), whose Verified Complaint pleads a 2025-10-15 auto accident and a State Farm vehicle-valuation dispute — and a separate home-insurance claim; - "insurance company dropped me. I don't have insurance on my house" + the unfinished roof → C023 Tufano v. City of Scranton (2025-09608, filed 2025-12-03, 9 days after publication), which alleges roofing/gutter contractor negligence across two properties and a subsequent denial of two insurance claims by Erie Insurance; - "all those insurance claims", plural → also open at this moment is the coverage denial pleaded in C024 Tufano v. United Healthcare (filed 2025-12-03).
If you're tired of getting scammed by these big companies like Baze Bodyworks, Frankie's Naturals sells higher quality products with less preservatives and chemicals for onethird of the price.
A dated public accusation of scamming customers against the company that became the lead defendant in the Based Bodyworks cases 93 days later, made while promoting his own competing product line.
The scariest part about all of this plastic surgery stuff is that these doctors can completely fabricate their reputation by paying off Google. It's actually it's insane. And I've made several videos on this, so I won't go into depth.
States the substance of the tracked search and review platform grievance in his own words, that doctors can fabricate a reputation by paying a search platform. Both cases in that dispute were pending when this was published. He also says he has made several videos on this, a pointer to further channel material.
And when I look at, you know, Dr. Toban's practice versus Dr. Douglas's practice versus this Japan doctor's practice, those that me explaining the difference between their staff, their employees, their building, how they operate and run…
Names the surgeon at the centre of the tracked medical litigation in a comparison of surgical practices; the captions spell the surname differently and it resolves only on correction. The comparison is adverse by implication, but he alleges no specific wrongdoing here and describes no filing.
we did end up staying in Tokyo and convincing the doctor to get a second surgery. Took a lot of convincing. I had to take out a new credit card because uh he did want me to pay for an additional procedure, but I thought, you know, let me…
A dated self-reported mitigation cost, a further procedure funded by opening a new credit line, within the same injury narrative.
uh he ended up taking out the implants that the first doctor initially put in and he added even more plates to the medial wall and just today at the posttop consultation the doctor said I was his most difficult case ever.
Documents remedial surgery undoing an earlier surgeon's work on the medial wall of the orbit, and reports the treating surgeon's characterisation of the severity of the case.
I keep getting banned by Dr. Tobond's reputation management team. So, we have been able to post these meals.
A present-tense allegation that a surgeon's reputation-management team keeps getting his accounts banned, which is the platform-suppression theory pleaded in a tracked action naming that surgeon, his practice, TikTok and his counsel. The surname reaches the transcript only as an auto-caption garble corrected to Taban, so the identification is a supported reading rather than a certainty, and the allegation is unadjudicated.
Man, I thought promoting Accutane was bad. Case Shammy has come out with his own mini Accutane pill that will give you liver failure eventually. Could be one year of use, two years of use, 5 years of use.
A dated public allegation that a named person's supplement will cause liver failure, made about someone who became a defendant in a federal action about eight months later. The research takes no position on whether the allegation is accurate.
And the vitamin A amount might not be as high as Accutane specifically, but all this other stuff, 3,000% 6,000% 700% of the RDI that's getting stored in your liver and it will accumulate for years and years and years and years until…
The substantive basis he offers for the allegation above, with dosage and accumulation figures, on a dated record. No formulation, label or study was checked for this entry.