Man's brain rewired itself in 19 years after crash

MSNBC ^ | July 3, 2006

[Alouette]

Doctors have proof on how man who was barely conscious for decades woke

Doctors have their first proof that a man who was barely conscious for nearly 20 years regained speech and movement because his brain spontaneously rewired itself by growing tiny new nerve connections to replace the ones sheared apart in a car crash.

Terry Wallis, 42, is thought to be the only person in the United States to recover so dramatically so long after a severe brain injury. He still needs help eating and cannot walk, but his speech continues to improve and he can count to 25 without interruption.

Wallis’ sudden recovery happened three years ago, but doctors said the same cannot be hoped for people in a persistent vegetative state, such as Terry Schiavo, the Florida woman who died last year after a fierce right-to-die court battle. Nor do they know how to make others with less serious damage, like Wallis, recover.

[antceecee]

Thanks Polybius.

[raygun]

Well, what is the definition of "miracle" and what can strictly secular and empirical science have to say about anything "supernatural"?

Is it sufficient to say that something that is unexplainable by science is miraculous or of supernatural origin? Maybe, but not necessarily. A truly miraculous, or supernatural influenced event, is one that transcends, or surpasses, all known phyical and natural laws.

Suppose Wallis had no life signs whatsoever, and suddenly became animate (despite an absolute lack of empricial physiological evidence of life) and coherently erudite, that'd be not only miraculous but supernatural. Throw a ball up in the air and it remains suspended at the apex of its travel. That by definition would be supernatural (and miraculous).

So then, can science categorically deny the supernatural? If one is so myopic in their perspective that the supernatural is denied, then an absolutely illogical presupposition or bias (if one is actually intellectually honest) exists, and the logical conclusion would be such person can have no hope in anything other than whatever they may epistemiologically know, or can empirically experience. By definitition, this would imply a certain sense of despairing cynicism one's world-view. That in my opinion is a hair's breadth away from nihilism.

Faith concerns itself not of those things seen, but in the unseen (and science not with the unseen but absolutely with the seen). Even so science does intimately understand "faith". There's no scientist that does not implicitely understand the meaning of faith, when, for example they board a jet aircraft and give no thought to the thousands of people who labored in the millions and millions of calculations required for the design of the aircraft (having no thought that the wings may fall off in flight). Or that whatever medication that they may ingest won't be some hideously toxic poison. That the chair that they're about to sit upon will support their weight. Such actions are done blindly, and without a second thought or rationalization.

For if faith is based on the seen, what need would there be for faith? And if there be no faith, then what can be hoped for? IF the existance of the supernatural was to be presummed, would it be illogical then to dismiss a supernatural influence of things occuring within the boundaries of physical science?. For example, could the total and spontaneous remission of "terminal" cancer be a miraclous recovery, precipitated by a supernatural force, and yet occuring entirely through some presently unknown (or even unknowable) physical process?

[Centurion2000]

Excellent explanation and thanks. I was wondering why the skull thickness had such a difference in the pictures.

[soccermom]

Oh baloney. They "got involved" in 1992 when Michael refused to give them half of his loss of consortium award. From that day forward, they fought his every move. No -- that just happens to coincide when Michael began withholding medical care for Terri. Amazing coincidence huh? He gets the money for rehab and then stops the rehab. Your ascribing the money motive to the Schindlers is totally illogical. If she lives, they have to provide for her care. That takes money -- money Michael was unwilling to have spent on her. There is no financial benefit to assuming her care -- only to killing her off.

There was hope by everyone back then that she would recover. So why would he even mention it? If he did, you probably would be screaming about how Michael "was in a rush to kill her". If there was hope "back then", why did he start scaling back care immediately as the malpractice insurance money started coming in? Wouldn't that be the time to start ramping up the rehab? Interesting how his "hope" died immediately after the settlement. Do you find it odd that not one medical professional who came in contact with Michael can recall him ever asserting it was Schiavo's wish to die if she were in such a state? (at least not until he made the claim to Pearson) Isn't it almost standard procedure to bring up living wills in such instances? Yet in nearly ten years, not one medical professional can recall him making such a claim. On the contrary, if I'm not mistaken there are medical professionals who claim he said he didn't know what her wishes were.

"How many opportunities would a young, healthy woman have to specifically discuss her wishes on such a subject?" Three. With Michael, his brother, and his brother's wife. Isn't that conveeeeeeenient. Terri doesn't discuss it with her parents or her siblings or any of her friends (except Meyer whom you discount) but she just happens to tell it to the guy who wants her dead and his brother! And it is sooooooooo neat the way they just up and remembered it nearly a decade after she became incapacitated!

It was the judge who said it changed nothing. Do you need a link to the opinion where he says exacly that? I don't care if the judge claims it changed nothing -- I care about what the judge stated at the time:
In his 2000 ruling, Greer notes that Meyer used the present tense in her statements, which he said raised serious questions about when they occurred. His ruling states that they more likely occurred in the 1970s when Schiavo was a child. "The court is mystified as to how these present tense verbs would have been used some six years after the death of Karen Ann Quinlin (sic)," he wrote. Quinlan lived until 1985, three years after Schiavo reportedly made the statement.

Now, Greer can claim all the wants that his incorrect assumption changed nothing, and that is true only because the facts, the truth never mattered to Greer. It "changed nothing" because he had his outcome determined regardless of the testimiony. His claim that his error doesn't matter is simply inconsistent with what he cited in his decision. Clearly, he made the decision to disregard her testimony based on an incorrect assumption. The fact that he is not willing to acknowledge that is just further indication that he is biased.

"I do know that Schiavo paid for his lawyer with that money."With permission. With permission from whom? Judge Greer? Quelle suprise! I blame her parents for that -- for bringing all the frivolous cases, none of which they won. Imagine that! The nerve of them trying to spare her life! Can you imagine if prosecutors were allowed to use a deathrow inmate's money to prosecute him?

Make up your mind! I said he was going to give the money to charity and you said it wasn't his to give away. Now you say he may have kept it because it was "technically" his. Geez Louise. You'll say whatever you want to support whatever point you're trying to make. It doesn't even have to be the truth or consistent with what you said before. No -- you need to go back and read my initial post. I said, "in spirit" the money wasn't his to give. The intent was for the money to go to Terri's rehab. But that didn't stop Michael from abusing the spirit of the award, did it?

So all three of them lied under oath as to what Terri told them. OK. Well, that certainly explains that. They lied. Why not? Is lying under oath a foreign concept to you? Ever hear of William Jefferson Clinton? I see you have no explanation for Schaivo's initial claim that he was the only one who heard Terri's wish and then the brother and wife "remembered" only after Pearson's report argued against Michael, citing that there were no witnesses to Michael's claim.

"According to the timeline, Schiavo accepted that Terri was in a PVS in 1994, yet he didn't "remember" her wish until 1998. Pretty convenient memory " Not really the actions of a man in a hurry to murder his wife. Like I said, you'll say whatever fits the argument you're trying to make. LOL! You're the one contradicting yourself. You claimed that he didn't say anything about Terri's wish because he had hope for recovery. Clearly, he was doing nothing to aid her recovery from the moment he got his settlement money. And according to the timeline, he accepted she was in a PVS in 1994. So we're supposed to believe he just sat around, knowing her wishes for four more years, without discussing it with anyone??????? When you consider Michael got engaged in 1997 and shortly after that he makes a move to have his wife killed, it certainly suggests he was indeed in a hurry. Up to that point, Michael was content to let his wife linger without proper care. When it became apparent she wasn't going to die without "a little help" and here he was with a wedding on the agenda, he was indeed in a hurry to move things along!

The guardian failed to mention in the report that the Schindlers had a financial interest if they were the caregivers. That is because there is no "financial interest" in taking on the burden of caring for a severely ill person. The money would be for her care -- period. Or are you suggesting they were going to put her in a shoebox and run off to Monte Carlo? The guardian failed to mention that Michael said he would give up the money, thereby removing his interest. That's because Michael didn't make the offer until 2001, and Pearson's report was in 98! Don't you find it odd that it took him so long to make such an offer, if he were being pure of heart? The offer was contingent upon the Schindlers agreeing to allow their daughter to be dehydrated to death. My, what a generous offer! Yeah, there was bias alright -- on the part of Judge Greer.

[T'wit]

Out of curiosity, have you come across a similar discussion in Code Blue Blog? Dr. CBB is a radiologist. He got positively exasperated with the parade of neurologists exclaiming to TV cameras how bad Terri's CT scan was. He reminded them that it was radiologists who interpret scans, not neurologists :-) I'll see if I can manage a link.

CBB offered quite a lot of good discussion about Terri's case (while she was alive), in three parts and a summary or two. Worth reading. Code Blue was a small, highly regarded site until the Schiavo case, then it turned into flame wars in the feedback. It hasn't been updated since, as far as I can see.

Let's see... CODEBLUEBLOG ANALYZES TERRI SCHIAVO'S CT OF THE BRAIN

[Polybius]

Out of curiosity, have you come across a similar discussion in Code Blue Blog? Dr. CBB is a radiologist. He got positively exasperated with the parade of neurologists exclaiming to TV cameras how bad Terri's CT scan was. He reminded them that it was radiologists who interpret scans, not neurologists :-) ....... CBB offered quite a lot of good discussion about Terri's case (while she was alive), in three parts and a summary or two. Worth reading.

Thanks for the link. I had never seen Code Blue Blog before.

I browsed through it and will read it posts later when I have more time.

It does point out some flat out lies of prior news reports such as pointing out that the CT slice at that level shows hydrocephalus (dilation of the ventricular system) instead of the "replacement of cortex by fluid" which is a highly misleading statement.

There is no question that Schiavo had prominent cortical atrophy but, when you have a neurologist comparing CT slices of a normal third ventricle axial level with Schiavo's lateral ventricle axial level (see Post 138), you do want to scream at the TV that, when it comes to interpreting CT's, that particular individual does not know his rectum from a Hounsfield unit.

While Sciavo was still alive, what greatly bothered me was the fact that bogus information was being passed out as "proof" which made me wonder what the real information actually was. I therefore felt that, by reasonable doubt alone, Schiavo deserved a full de novo evaluation by a panel from three University medical centers who had had absolutely no connection with the case before and did not already have a dog in the fight.

The blog also points out that no mention seems to have been made in Court rulings about the fact that Schiavo had a VP shunt in place. That makes a big difference since that suggests possible prior trauma (bleeding into the CSF space clogs up the drainage mechanism of the ventricles so new CSF produced by the choroid plexus builds up and dilates the ventricles).

Schiavo could very well have been a vegetable. However, many things such as the apples to orange comparison of CT slices, the preposterous characterization of dilated lateral ventricles as "cortex replaced by fluid" and the refusal to allow a de novo independent review before Schiavo was allowed to die and then promptly cremated just left my nose with a very strong smell of rotten Danish fish.

[T'wit]

>> ... will read it posts later when I have more time.

Please ping me if you have any further comments.

>> Schiavo could very well have been a vegetable.

There is credible testimony from several of her regular nurses that she was not. Nurses tend to be the eyes and ears of the profession and I think they are a good resource here. Some of the doctors who examined her found her to be responsive. I don't know if we'll ever have a definitive answer, but it has seemed to me from the record that she was significantly more responsive to people she liked and to doctors who took time with her, than to those who appeared to prejudge her as PVS and whose examinations were cursory.

[Lazamataz]

he can count to 25 without interruption.

That's not impressive. I can make it to 14, myself.

[robertpaulsen]

"No -- that just happens to coincide when Michael began withholding medical care for Terri."

He began withholding medical care? I'm aware of the one incident with the infection, but you're saying that was just the beginning? What other critical medical care was withheld by this monster? How he ever got that Distinguished Guardian of the Year award I'll never know.

"Your ascribing the money motive to the Schindlers is totally illogical. If she lives, they have to provide for her care."

And if she dies, or if the Schindlers change their mind a few years later and allow her to die, they get the money, not Michael. The Schindlers, unlike Michael, were going to care for Terri in their home. That means all the money goes to the Schindlers. I can think of a hundred "expenses" ostensibly for Terri's care that would equally benefit the Schindlers.

"On the contrary, if I'm not mistaken there are medical professionals who claim he said he didn't know what her wishes were."

Now that I'd be interested in. Got any proof? The rest of your rambling paragraph is mere speculation and conspiracy -- you're reading things into what's not said or what's not done.

"And it is sooooooooo neat the way they just up and remembered it nearly a decade"

You just can't break old habits, can you? You're now saying that all threee of them forgot and then "up and remembered", huh? With no proof. Mere speculation. That's it. Conspiracy theories.

"Now, Greer can claim all the wants that his incorrect assumption changed nothing"

It didn't. He associated Quinlin's death with pulling the plug -- a logical association. He misspoke. He should have said, "The court is mystified as to how these present tense verbs would have been used some six years after they disconnected Karen Ann Quinlin's life support. Which is indeed mystifying. Why would Terri discuss her feelings about the father contemplating pulling the plug when he already pulled it six years earlier? The testimony just wasn't credible.

"I said, "in spirit" the money wasn't his to give."

Look. If Terri died, the money was his. Screw your "in spirit". You're saying he wanted her dead to get the money. He lied, his brother lied, his brother's wife lied, Greer lied, everybody lied and conspired to kill Terri so Michael could get the money.

The problem with all that is Michael said, in writing, that he would give all the money to charity if Terri was allowed to die. Oops. So now what do you say? Now you say it wasn't his to give to charity. That wasn't the intent. It was only his "in spirit".

You are pathetic -- and that happens to be the least offensive description I could think of.

"So we're supposed to believe he just sat around, knowing her wishes for four more years"

You say that as though you disapprove. Yeah, he waited. Her care was being paid for and she may have improved. What's the rush? What is your problem?

"Up to that point, Michael was content to let his wife linger without proper care."

Without proper care. Without medical care. Just chock full of unsupported accusations, aren't you?

"That's because Michael didn't make the offer until 2001, and Pearson's report was in 98!"

Michael made that offer to Terri's parents, in writing, in 2001. He must have made a similar statement to Pearse before the 1998 report -- according to the Wolfson report:

"In response to Mr. Pearse's report, Michael Schiavo filed a Suggestion of Bias against Mr. Pearse. This document notes that Mr. Pearse failed to mention in his report that Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

Pearse also admitted his bias. When discharging Pearse, Greer noted that, ""Mr. Pearse readily agreed that he has feelings and viewpoints regarding the withdrawal of feeding and hydration tubes and that he did not so advise the court prior to his appointment".

[soccermom]

"Now that I'd be interested in. Got any proof?"

Since this seems to be the only thing you're genuinely open-minded about, I'll answer this first and get to the rest of your post later:
http://www.hospicepatients.org/trudycapone-05-09-01-affidavit-re-terri-schiavo-michael.pdf

[soccermom]

"I'm aware of the one incident with the infection, but you're saying that was just the beginning? What other critical medical care was withheld by this monster?" Shortly after ordering Terri not to be treated for the life-threatening infection, he ordered the DNR. He also ordered the staff not inform Terri's parents of her medical condition. He also rejected agressive rehabilitation therapy requested by the Schindlers. "How he ever got that Distinguished Guardian of the Year award I'll never know." You're not the only one to wonder that! Clearly, Michael was not selected by meeting the criteria. By the association's own words, it had not a thing to do with how he "cared" for her --- it was only because killed her. What a guy!

[soccermom]

"And if she dies, or if the Schindlers change their mind a few years later and allow her to die, they get the money, not Michael. The Schindlers, unlike Michael, were going to care for Terri in their home." Exactly! Michael wanted her sent off to a hospice to die -- when she never needed to be in a hospice -- while they, being her loving parents, wanted to care for her in their home! Only you could twist that act of love into something selfish! In his malpractice lawsuit, Michael claimed they expected her to have a life expectancy of 50 years. As I've said before, taking on her care would be a financial burdern -- not a boon. The only way someone comes out ahead in that deal is if she dies. Michael wanted her to die -- they didn't.

You just can't break old habits, can you? You're now saying that all threee of them forgot and then "up and remembered", huh? With no proof. Mere speculation. That's it. Conspiracy theories. BALONEY! I drew a logical conclusion based on the timeline. I have repeatedly asked you to explain how all three of them never brought up her alleged wishes for nearly nine years and you have nothing to offer but "he was holding out hope." So we're supposed to believe that it was never discussed even between Michael and his brother all those years. There she was in a PVS, as Michael allegedly accepted as early as 1994, yet not once did his brother or sister-in-law inform him of her alleged wish. Because, as I told you before, he claimed no one else knew of her so-called wish when he spoke to the Guardian in 1998. It was only after the Guardian advocated against him that the brother and sister-in-law came forward. It is not speculation to note their memory-come-lately. It is a fact. And what about Schiavo's testimony in 1993? In justifying his decision to withhold antibiotics from her he stated, "It's what I think Terri would want.....In my own feelings, if Terri were to wake up and see herself the way she is now, she wouldn't even want to live like that." Why didn't he simply refer to "her wish" back then and why didn't his siblings chime in at the time, "Oh yeah, she told us that?" So much for holding out hope! He stopped caring for Terri the instant the settlement was in and when nature failed to take it's course fast enough and he had to clear the way for the new bride, he stepped things up.

[soccermom]

"It didn't. He associated Quinlin's death with pulling the plug -- a logical association. He misspoke. He should have said, "The court is mystified as to how these present tense verbs would have been used some six years after they disconnected Karen Ann Quinlin's life support. Which is indeed mystifying. Why would Terri discuss her feelings about the father contemplating pulling the plug when he already pulled it six years earlier? The testimony just wasn't credible." LOL! So now you're repeating Felos's spin for the judge? Wow! Not only can Felos read Terri's mind, but he can read the judge's too. Interesting that the judge was so concerned about the timeline when it came to Meyer, but didn't seem the slightest bit concerned about the failure of Schiavo and his family to come forward with Schiavo's wishes in a timely manner.

"Look. If Terri died, the money was his. Screw your "in spirit". You're saying he wanted her dead to get the money. He lied, his brother lied, his brother's wife lied, Greer lied, everybody lied and conspired to kill Terri so Michael could get the money." Once again, you're missing the point entirely! If you read my initial post on the subject of the money, it was a commentary on Michael's arrogance. The whole point of the money is that it was for TERRI. It is profoundly arrogant for him to offer a deal whereby he would donate her money to charity if the parents agree to have her killed off. What part of that is so hard for you to grasp? Clearly, if Michael was offering the money to charity, he had the legal right to do what he wanted with it. I was commenting on how his actions reveal he was not acting in accordance with the spirit of the judgement. Michael got on the stand and wept and said he loved his wife and would care for her the rest of her life and he expected her to live until she was 50 and blah...blah...blah. He was awarded in accordance with that spirit and then he turned around and used it against her. Disgusting!
The problem with all that is Michael said, in writing, that he would give all the money to charity if Terri was allowed to die. Oops. So now what do you say? Now you say it wasn't his to give to charity. That wasn't the intent. It was only his "in spirit". LOL! Pay attention! You brought up the money issue first -- not me! I was well aware of Michael's so-called "offer" before anything was posted here. It was a crass, hollow offer, as I explained in the above paragraph. Schiavo made it, late in the timeline as a form of damage control, and made it contingent upon the Schindler agreement to have Terri dehydrated to death. He knew very well they would never agree to that. It was a stunt.

"You are pathetic -- and that happens to be the least offensive description I could think of." And I can think of plenty worse to describe a man who would willingly turn a blind eye to the claims of countless nurses about Schiavo's actions and who will sit there with a straight face and pretend there is absolutely no reason to question the credibility of a man who announces his engagement to one woman and then petitions to have his current wife killed. Dispicable!

"You say that as though you disapprove. Yeah, he waited. Her care was being paid for and she may have improved. What's the rush? What is your problem?" Spare me your spin! You are contradicting yourself. You claimed he waited to reveal Terri's wishes because he was hoping she would improve, when I've already made it abundantly clear he gave up "hope" immediately after the insurance money came in. He asserted as much in 1993. Her "care" was minimalized by Michael. Here's a hint: You don't "help" someone improve by ordering that she not receive antibiotics and by ordering that she not be stimulated.

Without proper care. Without medical care. Just chock full of unsupported accusations, aren't you? Oh, my bad. Refusing antibiotics for the express purpose of allowing Terri to die is something I made up. There have been at least 3 nurses who have sworn affidavits alleging Schiavo's medical neglect of Terri. But, in your world, only the guy who has every incentive to have his wife dead and that guy's family tell the truth. Everyone else - the nurses, Terri's friends, Michael's ex-girlfriends -- they're all lying, right? "Michael made that offer to Terri's parents, in writing, in 2001. He must have made a similar statement to Pearse before the 1998 report -- according to the Wolfson report:" Yeah - he must have -- because Michael says so! That clears it up!

[robertpaulsen]

This is my fault. I thought when you said "medical professionals" you were referring to the neurologists or Terri's personal physician, or other doctors involved in this case. I should have known better.

Here you give me some bogus affidavit of a candy-striper ex-girlfriend of Michael's (and you know what they say about a woman scorned).

I'm ... just speechless. I actually have no comment.

[robertpaulsen]

If your point is that Michael stopped the rehab, I concede. Other than that, Terri received excellent medical care.

[robertpaulsen]

"Michael wanted her sent off to a hospice to die -- "

Only after the judge ordered her feeding tube removed -- since removing the feeding tube would allow her to die, a hospice is the appropriate place for her to be.

"The only way someone comes out ahead in that deal is if she dies."

Baloney. If the Schindlers were taking care of Terri in their home, I can think of a hundred "expenses" ostensibly for Terri's care that would equally benefit them.

"Michael wanted her to die -- they didn't."

Since Michael offered to give the money to charity, how would her death be a boon to him?

"Because, as I told you before, he claimed no one else knew of her so-called wish when he spoke to the Guardian in 1998."

Read his report for yourself. Nowhere does he say that. So stop with the gossip, once and for all.

"And what about Schiavo's testimony in 1993?"

Give me a link to it, and I'll comment on it. It's obvious that you can't be trusted to tell me the truth.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is profoundly arrogant for him to offer a deal whereby he would donate her money to charity if the parents agree to have her killed off"

If she died, the money was his. He offered to donate it to charity. WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

"There have been at least 3 nurses who have sworn affidavits alleging Schiavo's medical neglect of Terri."

Three dingbats, you mean, one of whom claimed that Michael was injecting Terri with insulin -- though she had no proof. Another who claimed Terri could eat Jell-O and swallow liquids, though no one else was with her to witness it.

None of these "nurses" testified at Judge Greer's 2000 hearing to determine Terri's fate. NONE. Where were they? Why didn't they testify when it would have done some good? Why did they wait and just give depositions a year or two later?

Why? Because under cross examination they would have been ripped to shreds -- especially the liar Iyer.

[soccermom]

"Here you give me some bogus affidavit of a candy-striper ex-girlfriend of Michael's (and you know what they say about a woman scorned)." How predictable! Any affidavit other than that of Michael, his brother and brother's wife is "bogus"! Funny how, in your world, everyone else is lying -- Terri's friend, the nurses, Michael's girlfriends. All of them are lying! The only person who could possibly be telling the truth is the guy with a motive for wanting her dead and his relatives! And then you undermine her medical credentials, simply because you don't like what she has to say! And then you give the predictable "woman scorned" argument when you haven't a clue what went on between them.

[soccermom]

"If your point is that Michael stopped the rehab, I concede." OK --not exactly the actions of someone who had "hope" his wife would recover, is it? Hence, the battle with his in-laws. They wanted to continue rehab, so stop pretending they got involved because they wanted money.

[Vaduz]

Every man plays doctor sometimes try on your wife.