>>>How can it be, "thought" to involve amputations? It is either there or it is not. Can't he tell?? <<<<
The article in the Guardian is a knock-off from a 'world exclussive' hate piece "interview" in the Mirror.
Follow this link for the original.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-MY%2DHELL%2DIN%2DCAMP%2DX%2DRAY-name_page.html The fast answer is, he said it was "unneccessarly high" amputations; they took too much off.
As a word of explanation, 'over there', if half the foot needs to be cut off, that is all they cut off, and then the person can hobble around as best they can.
Our doctors routinely take the entire foot in that case, so a prosthetic can be fitted. You can't "replace" half a foot with a prothesis; at least not yet, that I'm aware of.
Hope that helps. BTW, you DO know it is all BS, I hope. Of course you do; you are on FR.
Hope that helps. BTW, you DO know it is all BS, I hope. Of course you do; you are on FR. Thanks for the clarification. I missed the article in the link. We have a huge project at work and I am in meetings most of the day. It really cuts into my FReep time.
Yes, I know the claims are bunk. It just struck me so odd that they think it may have involved amputation. I know these guys lie through their teeth. After all, we are only infidels and it doesn't matter if you lie to an infidel. But it seemed that he could come up with something a little more believable.
Thanks again!!
Becki