Replies

Re: "There are serious questions about what happened to cause her to collapse as there was never discovered in tests the "chemical imbalance" that the news media always falsely reports."

You said:
"No, I understand you read that a lot, but it just is not true."

Obviously Trinity_Tx -

You have Not read the medical examination and evaluation of Terri by the world reknowned neurolistist, WILLIAM M. HAMMESFAHR, M.D. who was the 1999 Nominee for Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology.

He was also 1 of 113 worldwide nominations in Medicine and Physiology who was nominated for the advances in stroke and brain injury. He was awarded 1998 Outstanding Young American - For - discoveries in stroke and brain injury treatment among other awards.

It sounds to me like HE ought to know about strokes and brain injury!

This is partially what he said: "In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's - did Not show evidence of a heart attack.

Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest X-Rays were obtained. The possibility of toxic shock syndrome was also entertained. The diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown.

Her admission laboratory studies showed low potassium level, markedly elevated glucose level, and a normal toxic screen - Without evidence of diet pills or amphetamines.

The abnormal potassium level and sugar level were found on admission to the Emergency Room and were successfully corrected by the hospital staff over the next several days."

He also said several times: ENT: The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated).

Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow. It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube. She should be evaluated by an Ear Nose and Throat specialist, and have a new swallowing exam.

Spinal Exam: The patient's exam from a spinal perspective is abnormal. The degree of limitation of range of motion, and of spasms in her neck, is consistent with a neck injury.

The abnormal sensory exam, that shows evidence of her hypoxic encephalopathic strokes (right side sensory responses are different from left) also suggests a spinal cord injury at around the level of C4. Her physical exam and videotapes also suggest a spinal cord injury is also present, as she has much better control over he face, head, and neck, than over her arms and legs.

This reminds one of a person with a spinal cord injury who has good facial control, but poor use of arms and legs. It is possible that a correctable spinal abnormality such as a herniated disk may be found that could be treated and result in better neurological functioning. This should be looked for, as may be treatable. Thus, there may be an injured disk or spinal cord; the disk injury is more treatable, the spinal cord injury, if present without a disk injury, may be more difficult to treat.

A person with a spinal cord injury and hypoxic encephalopathy will need different treatment and rehab recommendations than one who just has a hypoxic encephalopathic.

Interestingly, I have seen this pattern of mixed brain (cerebral) and spinal cord findings in a patient once before, a patient who was Asphyxiated.

About the other doctors who examined:

During 1998, she was evaluated by Dr. James Barnhill, neurologist, who testified that he examined her for ten minutes and determined that she had no chance for recovery, and was in a persistent vegetative state.

How much can you determine in a short 10 minute exam?

Dr. William Hammesfahr further said:

On September 3, I spent from approximately 11AM until 4PM with Ms. Schiavo, returning the next day to also observe Dr. Maxfield and complete my portion of the exam (which - duplicated that of Dr. Maxfield, so I observed without myself specifically repeating that part of the exam that same day).

This is what Dr. William Hammesfahr's evaluation was after those Two days/10 hours of Extensive tests -

Impression:

The patient is not in coma.

She is alert and responsive to her environment. She responds to specific people best.

She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.

She responds negatively to poor tone of voice.

She responds to music.

She differentiates sounds from voices.

She differentiates specific people's voices from others.

She differentiates music from stray sound.

She attempts to verbalize.

She has voluntary control over multiple extremities
She can swallow.

She is partially blind

She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.

She can feel pain.

Now which exam will you trust - a 10 minute one - or a thorough ten hour/two day examination exam by two prominant doctors?

Please read: http://www.ginzell.net/hammesfahr_interview_startling_revelations.html

For an notes from the January 7, 2004, Highway 2 Health Internet broadcast - an Interview featuring Dr. Hammesfahr.

Anita, you said, "Re: "There are serious questions about what happened to cause her to collapse as there was never discovered in tests the "chemical imbalance" that the news media always falsely reports.";

I told you that was not true and gave you a link to her medical records to show you why.

Now you give me quotes by Dr H, and even he says that there was a chemical imbalance.

I have indeed read and reread (among the other Dr reports, affs, depos, and transcripts) every word in Dr Hammesfahr's report - long and short versions, interview transcripts and his actual trial testimony.

I wont nitpick his Nobel prize nomination, but I can tell you that the reality of what that nomination means is not that impressive to me, or the court. Read the trial transcripts and the decisions.

Anyway, you quote him:

"In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's - did Not show evidence of a heart attack."

Indeed he did say that, and he knows the difference between a "heart attack"(MI) and a "cardiac arrest".

Her doctors and medics saw her in cardiac arrest and diagnosed it as such, and made the completely appropriate diagnosis that it was caused by her "severe hypopotassemia". It's all on her chart at the link I gave you.

Cardiac Arrest is a problem with the way the heart *beats*. Too much potassium, and it will become sluggish. Too little causes the heart to beat way too fast - erratically - so that the oxygenated blood doesn't actually get pumped out. (Her potassium level, at a 2, was fatally low if not caught before the entire brain has died from lack of O2)

Heart attack (MI) *can* coincide with cardiac arrest, and to find out if that happened, you look for cardiac enzymes that would rise from the destruction of heart muscle an MI causes. You only see that in 50% of cardiac arrests. But you need to know so you can treat the damaged muscle.

"Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest X-Rays were obtained. The possibility of toxic shock syndrome was also entertained. The diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown."

Yes, they ruled these out - and they weren't necessary to explain her lack of O2 to the brain. Yes, "the diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown" in the ER.

But once they were finished with her medical history, the diagnosis was clear and is stated on her charts.

"Her admission laboratory studies showed low potassium level, markedly elevated glucose level,"

..and low calcium, and undernourishment, all consistent with her diagnosis and event.

(and contradicts your assertion that there was no chemical imbalance)

"and a normal toxic screen - Without evidence of diet pills or amphetamines."

And he knows that those aren't necessary. All it takes is too many or chronic use of laxatives, diuretics, emetics, or vomiting. It is what killed Karen Carpenter, because she wasn't found in time.

My sons need me now, so I'll leave the rest of your post to answer later, since it is irrelevant to the point.

Just consider that many of you are going by certain quotes from one doctor, hired by her parents, who only looked at her charts years later. (Like the other dr who appeared on Greta and got everyone in a tizzy)

I am going by what was said by an entire staff of physicians with no bias, and that is medically sound because it is so consistent.

And so no one mistakes me, I am in no way supporting her husband or what he wants to do. I think she should go to her parents. I just think we need to dispel rumors when they see them, for the sake of our own integrity.