Dr Albert Shafransky Cardiologist

In case any of our readers haven’t realised it yet, the medical profession in Australia, is, to all intents and purposes, unregulated – doctors know they can get away with murder, almost literally.

If we don’t do our homework we can find ourselves in the hands of a real shocker.

To us, a quick and easy way to find out what a doctor is like, (and lots of other people and organisations as well,) is to send him or her an email before you consult or use them, and see how you get on.

To us, there’s a huge difference between a Dr Shafransky, who gets up early in the morning to send himself what appears to be a great response, (at 5.09 am,) and a Dr Andrew Brooks, Urologist who not only doesn’t respond to any emails sent to him, but when asked why, claims it’s because his email set-up is such that it recognises when an email is from a patient and screens it out so he doesn’t receive it, (which of course isn’t true!)

Sometimes, when you read about some of the things Dr Brooks and his staff get up to, you can think you’re watching something out of the Benny Hill show!

Of course, the last thing you want to be doing is dealing with someone like Dr Brooks who can’t be bothered justifying anything he’s said and done – who just doesn’t care.

This entry was posted in Cardiologists, Dr Andrew Brooks Urologist. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Dr Albert Shafransky Cardiologist

  1. Kris says:

    It’s Dr ALBERT Shafransky – Cardiologist, not “Alfred”.
    If I was Dr S, I would be pissed at 3 things regarding this article. 1. You getting his name wrong 2. Being mentioned in the same article as a specialist that you are calling out for seemingly having no integrity. (Never the two shall meet, in principle, OR in print) 3. This scenario – Dr S googles his name on a Sunday morning while reading the paper, and finds your article on the first page of a search (Ok, so his name is wrong, I guess that could count in his favour?) – any prospective employer/ business associate/ financial operator could come across this article, skim over it and completely misinterpret the reference. (People do stupid things for a whole host of reasons – some people are just stupid).
    If you have published the incorrect name of a doctor, or anyone for that matter, whether favourable or unfavourable, it gives less credibility to the rest of your argument.
    In support (and I certainly do support exposing the “convicted” shit doctors – not a legal term, just my poetic description) of your article/ blog/ website, I want to state that we, as Australians, should be fortunate for the recent shift in regulatory compliance that sets the standard for the rest of the world in regards to our public and private health systems. Never has this been more stringent than in 3rd party engagements -“Agencies” – for the readers at home. (Sidebar: bigger is not always better – a whole blog could be devoted to this topic alone…).
    Agencies – where recruitment 101, (insert sassy comment regarding the number 360 – I’ll get back to that some other time) for those that actually respect the process of due diligence, requires a vast compliance “tick sheet” and a citation of select certified documents, in addition to a GOOGLE SEARCH of said doctor -ALL FIRST 20 PAGES!! Have you ever googled something and gone past the 2nd page? Who does that?
    Compliance managers do – well, they’re supposed to…. Time poor (over worked, underpaid, unqualified, sloppy, just don’t care, whatevs?) administrators may come across THIS article. They may not read the whole article as intended. To be fair, they may not read past the first couple of lines (people are bored easily – when I say people I mean me). They may pick up on the fact that you have misspelled Dr S’s name and by default have actually created a whole new identity. However, as I fear from experience, this article may actually result in a “RED FLAG”. A red flag for Dr S is BAD. A red flag is “Do Not Proceed”. Dr S may no longer be in contention for a job he may be interested in. Dr S may no longer be a viable business partner. Dr S may no longer be the referral physician of choice. Dr S may not be a number of things across a number of different facets. Attention. Detail. Caput.
    On the flip-side, I applaud anyone for bringing information forward to a public platform, particularly in relation to health professionals, individuals whom with which I (and I am speaking for myself) place the highest level of trust in. However, just like food, it is all about combining. I understand the need for juxtaposition, but in this age of lazy tech, and a healthy measure of just not giving a shit, we (journalists, bloggers, decent human beings that contribute to online content) need to ensure we are not publicly misrepresenting another individual- whatever their profession.
    Dr Brooks sounds like a real dick, but given that you didn’t get the other doctor’s name right – well, it raises some questions.
    If someone has the intention to publish an article about the not-so -shiny reputation of someone else for all the world to see, said person should research (like, for real ok- I’m talking old school investigative, talking to real people face to face and going to locations that are outside the perimeter of your wifi etc), reflect and then take the most objective position. People like to make their own decisions. Really. They do.

    It’s an odd relationship – patient and doctor. There’s a level of exposure that can at times defy what we hold true about our own relationships and interactions with others.
    For this reason, if nothing else, make god damn (sorry Jesus) sure that the information you make available to any Barry that can google is correct. If I was Dr S, I would politely ask you to remove my name from this article.

  2. Paul Dreyer says:

    Dear Dr Shrafransky,
    I saw your website as a cardiologist in Sydney and as a highly rated doctor in Australia. I am very pleased that you have become successful. I remember the day when you and your family’s left Almaty and I prayed for your safe journey. I am now retired and Marilyn and I are living in Massachusetts. Kind regards. Paul

  3. Michael Shoikhedbrod says:

    Hi Dr. Shafransky,
    It is Dr. Michael Shoikhedbrod from Canada.
    I think that we together with your father many years work in oncology.
    If it is not difficult for you answer me on email that is under. How is your father ?

    Thanks an advance

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Michael Shoikhedbrod

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *