The medical board hearing in 2008 censured the Environmental Health Center for: using experimental testing techniques without informing the patient, testing for SNPs which have no clinical relevance, using SPECT without validation to establisha neurocognitive diagnosis, using skintesting to establish a diagnosisof allergy to neurotransmitters, using hair venous blood gas analysis, pupilography, and thermography for diagnosis for which no scientific basis exists, usingsloppy testing, inconsistent with any proctice standards, failure to properly interpret tests, etc. Please see "William Rea, M.D.Facing Charges by the TExas Medical Board,'by Stephen Barrett, M.D.
As a new patient, having failed to properly research this organization, I was subjected to many, if not all, of the early malpractice allegations. Having spent $3863.27 and currently under fire for an additional $1061, I advise patients with diffult to diagnose ailments to obtain a second opinion before beginning treatment at EHC.
Environmental Health Center Reviews
The medical board hearing in 2008 censured the Environmental Health Center for: using experimental testing techniques without informing the patient, testing for SNPs which have no clinical relevance, using SPECT without validation to establisha neurocognitive diagnosis, using skintesting to establish a diagnosisof allergy to neurotransmitters, using hair venous blood gas analysis, pupilography, and thermography for diagnosis for which no scientific basis exists, usingsloppy testing, inconsistent with any proctice standards, failure to properly interpret tests, etc. Please see "William Rea, M.D.Facing Charges by the TExas Medical Board,'by Stephen Barrett, M.D.
As a new patient, having failed to properly research this organization, I was subjected to many, if not all, of the early malpractice allegations. Having spent $3863.27 and currently under fire for an additional $1061, I advise patients with diffult to diagnose ailments to obtain a second opinion before beginning treatment at EHC.