Dr. William Hammesfahr, nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in Medicine, has been recognized by agents for Medicare, the federal government, and others for new approaches to helping the brain injured.

Dr. Hammesfahr has been identified in helping patients with chronic brain injuries from many causes actually leave long term disability, and return to work.

Dr. Hammesfahr was identified the first physician to restore deficits caused by stroke.

Dr. Hammesfahr has released the following statement in response to the autopsy report on Terri Schindler Schiavo:

We have seen a lot on the autopsy of Terri Schindler Schiavo in recent days, that I feel needs to be addressed. To ignore these comments will allow future 'Terri Schiavo's' to die needlessly after the wishes of clinicians and family are ignored.

Considering that there were so many physicians and therapists who were willing to step forward to treat Terri Schiavo, from university based practitioners to those in private practice, it clearly shows that the mainstream medical community across the board, those involved in treating patients, knew that they could help Terri.

The record must be set straight. As we noted in the press, there was no heart attack, or evident reason for this to have happened (and certainly not of Terri's making).

Unlike the constant drumbeat from the husband, his attorneys, and his doctors, the brain tissue was not dissolved, with a head of just spinal fluid. In fact, large areas were "relatively preserved."

The purpose of the therapies offered by so many, from major universities, brain injury centers, and from private practice physicians, is to improve and restore quality of life, and function, which the mainstream medical community clearly tried to get to her.

I have had a chance to look at Dr. Nelson's analysis of the brain tissue, and essentially, as a clinician, these are my thoughts.

The autopsy results confirmed my opinion and Dr. Maxfield's opinions, that the frontal areas of the brains, the areas that deal with awareness and cognition were relatively intact. To use Dr. Nelson's words, "relatively preserved." In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal regions of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by way of the basal ganglia, were preserved, thus the evident responses which she was able to express to her family and to the clinicians seeing her or viewing her videotape. The Spect scan confirmed these areas were functional and not scar tissue, and that was apparently also confirmed on Dr. Nelson's review of the slides. Dr. Maxfield's estimates of retained brain weight were apparently accurate, although there may have been some loss of brain weight due to the last two weeks of dehydration.

Dr. Maxfield and myself both emphasized that she was a woman trapped in her body, similar to a child with cerebral palsy, and that was born out by the autopsy, showing greater injury in the motor and visual centers of the brain. Obviously, the pathologists comments that she could not see were not borne out by reality, and thus his assessment must represent sampling error. The videotapes clearly showed her seeing, and even Dr. Cranfoed, for the husband, commented to her that, when she could see the balloon, she could follow it with her eyes as per his request.

That she could not swallow was obviously not borne out by the reality that she was swallowing her saliva, about 1.5 liters per day of liquid, and the clinical swallowing tests done by Dr. Young and Dr. Carpenter. Thus, there appears to be some limitations to the clinical accuracy of an autopsy in evaluating function.

With respect to the issue of trauma, that certainly does not appear to be answered adequately. Some of the types of trauma that are suspected were not adequately evaluated in this assessment. Interestingly, both myself and at least one neurologist for the husband testified to the presence of neck injuries. The issue of a forensic evaluation for trauma, is highly specialized. Hence the wish of the family to have observers which was refused by the examiner.

Ultimately, based on the clinical evidence and the autopsy results, an aware woman was killed.

[Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 1999. The Nomination was for work started in 1994. In 2000, this work resulted in approval for the first patent in history granted for the treatment of neurological diseases including coma, stroke, brain injury, cerebral palsy, hypoxic injuries and other neurovascular disorders with medications that restore blood flow to the brain. It was extended to treat successfully disabilities including ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia, Tourette's and Autism as well as behaviorally and emotionally disturbed children, seizures and severe migraines.]

Dubious doctor touted as Nobel Prize nominee by Hannity, Scarborough

Fox News host Sean Hannity and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough both promoted Dr. William Hammesfahr's false claim that he is a Nobel Prize nominee.

Hammesfahr* testified during an October 2002 court hearing on the Schiavo case that his claim to be a Nobel nominee is based on a letter written by Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) recommending him for the prize. But Bilirakis is not qualified to make a valid nomination under the Nobel rules.

According to the process posted on the Nobel Prize website, the Nobel Assembly sends out invitations to approximately 3,000 people who are allowed to propose candidates. The 3,000 are "mainly members of the Nobel Assembly, previous prize winners, and a selection of professors at universities around the world." In providing detailed information about those who can submit nominations, the site states:

Right to submit proposals for the award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

Members of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm;
Swedish and foreign members of the medical class of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences;
Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine;
Members of the Nobel Committee not qualified under paragraph 1 above;
Holders of established posts as professors at the faculties of medicine in Sweden and holders of similar posts at the faculties of medicine or similar institutions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway;
Holders of similar posts at no fewer than six other faculties of medicine selected by the Assembly, with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution of the task among various countries and their seats of learning; and
Practitioners of natural sciences whom the Assembly may otherwise see fit to approach.

Decisions concerning the selection of the persons appointed under paragraphs 6 and 7 above are taken before the end of May each year on the recommendation of the Nobel Committee.

But the fact that Bilirakis is not qualified to nominate Nobel Prize winners did not stop Scarborough or Hannity from referring to Hammesfahr as a Nobel Prize nominee. Hannity did so a total of eight times during a single hour-long program; Scarborough made the reference four times. Additionally, Scarborough erroneously claimed that Hammesfahr has "treated" Schiavo; in fact, Hammesfahr has merely examined her as one of five doctors approved by a Florida court in 2001 to do so. He was one of two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents; two others were selected by Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, and the fifth was chosen by the court.

From the March 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: And we're going to talk to a doctor who spent 10 hours with her tonight, and he says that he believes, in his expert opinion -- this is a man that was nominated for a Nobel Prize, by the way -- that she could be rehabilitated.
[...]
HANNITY: And coming up later in the program tonight, we're going to meet a doctor who actually spent 10 hours examining Terri Schiavo. He was nominated for a Nobel Prize. He believes that she could be rehabilitated.
[...]
HANNITY: You were nominated for a Nobel Prize in medicine?
HAMMESFAHR: Yes.
[...]
HANNITY: You were nominated to get a Nobel Peace Prize in this work. Are you saying that this woman could be rehabilitated?
[...]
HANNITY: How is it possible we're in this position if you have examined her? You were up for a Nobel Prize. This is mind boggling to me.
[...]
HANNITY: Well, this is what I want to understand. This is your area of expertise that got you nominated for one of the most prestigious awards in medicine, the Nobel Prize.
[...]
HANNITY: -- hang on a second -- and talk to a Nobel prize-nominated physician who spent 10 hours with her, who believes if, given the opportunity, he can rehabilitate her?
[...]
HANNITY: Imagine being in his position and having a guy like a Nobel Prize nominee like Dr. Hammesfahr, who I'm looking at right now, who spent 10 hours with her and feels that, given the chance, he could rehabilitate this girl.

From the March 21 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: And a Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist who has treated Terri Schiavo, he says Terri should live and that her husband is perpetrating a hoax that is just aimed at killing his wife.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: And I'm going to be talking with a Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist who has treated Terri Schiavo and he says her husband is pulling a huge hoax simply to kill his wife.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Coming up: a Nobel Prize-nominated neurologist who is treating Terri Schiavo says her husband is pulling a hoax.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: So, what is Terri Schiavo's true medical condition? Here to help us sort it out is Dr. William Hammesfahr. He's a neurologist who was nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in medicine. And he's one of the doctors who has treated Terri Schiavo.

* Correction: In this item, Media Matters previously wrote that the Florida Board of Medicine disciplined Hammesfahr in 2003. We have subsequently learned that the board's action was reversed on appeal in 2004 by the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal. We regret the error.

About the Schiavo "Nobel Prize Nominated" Doctor
Amended 23 March. NewsMax reports that Dr. William Hammesfahr "believes that Terri Schiavo can recover with proper treatment." NewsMax -- along with FOX, MSNBC, the National Review and Dr. Hammesfahr's website -- indicates that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1999.

From Nobel Prize FAQ (emphasis added):

3. Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize, or where do I find a list of Nobel Prize nominees?

According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. Nomination information older than fifty years is public.

So, if he had been truly nominated -- he would be violating fundamental Nobel Foundation principles to say that. The 50 year vow of silence is up in 2049. But wait. There's more.

The Tampa Tribune reported in 2003 that the Nobel Prize nomination was a letter written by Hammesfahr's Congressman to the Nobel committee.

The Nobel Prize website articulates the nomination procedure: a letter from a Congressman isn't on the list. Does the Nobel Committee consider these "informal" nominations? In a word: no. (and a nod to News Hounds)

The Florida court found Hammesfahr's 2002 testimony in the Schiavo case to be anecdotal. A quick review of the handful of published research on his web site makes that judgment abundantly clear. It reminds me of the "doctor-by-mail-order" materials that land by the truckload in my parents' mailbox each month.

Censured by Florida Board of Medicine
In 2003, the Florida Board of Medicine fined him $2,000 for billing a patient for services not received, forced him to pay $52,000 in court costs, and directed him to perform 100 hours of community service. (cite - pdf) The Board of Medicine also

ruled that Hammesfahr's treatment of stroke patients, using a procedure he has claimed could help Terri Schiavo, was "not within the generally accepted standard of care" (Finding of Fact No. 55, PDF p. 33), it declined to rule that the treatment was harmful to his patients and noted that some patients improved after treatment. (cite)

In March 2004, an appeals court determined that Hammesfahr did charge a patient $3,000 for three days of services; however, the patient received only two days of services. The appeals court reversed the fine:
The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that the patient enrolled in a $3000 treatment program but only received a $2000 treatment program. However, the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the overcharge was the result of exploitation for financial gain under section 458.331(1)(n)... At best, the facts in this case provide a basis for a civil contract dispute between the parties.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.