Man's brain rewired itself in 19 years after crash

"There was. But it seemed to me that all the doubters were the pro-life crowd -- in other words, it better suited their agenda to find doubt." Oh come on! The only people who would know her wishes would be her friends and family. So the fact that her parents happen to be pro-life means they are going to lie about their own daughter's wishes? Everyone, with the exception of Michael Schiavo and his brother, maintain she had no such wish. If anyone had an agenda it was he. I don't see what was so "clear and convincing" about a wish he suddenly remembered years later.

You tell me. I'm no expert on the subject, but I saw her eyes moving in that video. Seemed minimally conscious to me. I've heard PVS is subjective, but like I said, I'm no expert, I just know what I saw in those videos.

>>He stopped voting democrat?<<
That was their first clue.

"I...WAANNT...."

Coma man's rewired brain astonishes doctors

Benedict Carey, Harriet, Arkansas
July 5, 2006

A MAN who was barely conscious for nearly 20 years regained speech and movement three years ago because his brain spontaneously rewired itself.

US doctors say they now can prove his brain has grown tiny new nerve connections to replace the ones sheared apart in a car crash.

Terry Wallis, 42, spends almost all his waking hours in bed, listening to country music in a cramped, two-room house.

He speaks in a slurred but coherent voice, returning a visitor's pleased-to-meet-you with "Glad to be met," and speaking haltingly of his family's plans to light fireworks at his brother's house nearby.

For his family, each word is a miracle. For 19 years — until June 11, 2003 — Mr Wallis lay mute and virtually unresponsive in a state of minimal consciousness, the result of a head injury received in a traffic accident. Since his abrupt recovery — his first word was "Mom" — he has continued to improve, speaking more, remembering more.

But Mr Wallis' progress has also been a kind of miracle for scientists: an unprecedented opportunity to study, using advanced scanning technology, how the human brain can suddenly recover from such severe, long-lasting injury.

In a paper published this week, researchers say they have strong evidence that Mr Wallis' brain is healing itself by forming new neural connections.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/coma-mans-rewired-brain-astonishes-doctors/2006/07/04/1151778935995.html#

Woman details her 20-year coma (knew about 9/11 and OKC in the coma!)
CBS News ^ | 8/4/05 | CBS

Posted on 08/04/2005 5:49:22 PM PDT by rwfromkansas

For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin was seemingly unaware of the world around her after she was hit by a drunk driver in an accident that sent her into a comatose state in September of 1984.

Then in February, she shocked her parents and doctors when she began to speak. In her first national television interview, after undergoing surgery on her long-unused limbs and speech therapy to unlock her long-dormant tongue, Scantlin speaks with The Early Show national correspondent Tracy Smith in a two-part interview to be broadcast Thursday and Friday...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457206/posts

There was also a woman in New Mexico who awoke from --- I think --- a 9 year coma.

"The only people who would know her wishes would be her friends and family."

That's true.

"So the fact that her parents happen to be pro-life means they are going to lie about their own daughter's wishes?"

Her father never testified in court as to his daughter's wishes. The mother testified but, under cross examination, retracted her statement. Why did the mother initially lie? I don't know. My guess is that her parents could have used that $700,000 in that they filed for bankruptcy a few years earlier.

I was referring to the posters on this board -- it seemed to me that all the doubters were the pro-life crowd. What are the odds, huh?

"Everyone, with the exception of Michael Schiavo and his brother, maintain she had no such wish."

Actually, Michael, his brother, and his brother's wife all testified in court as to what Terri told them. This "everyone" you're referring to -- why didn't they testify? Why didn't these thousands of people line up for the witness stand to tell their story and save Terri? Where were they when it mattered?

"If anyone had an agenda it was he."

His agenda was to fulfill her wish. Period. What agenda are you talking about? The money? He offered, in writing, to give it all away to charity. What agenda?

"I don't see what was so "clear and convincing" about a wish he suddenly remembered years later."

The judge did. He heard all the testimony. He heard the cross examinations. He watched the mannerisms. And it wasn't just Michael's testimony.

You say Michael "suddenly remembered"? Which means he forgot. Initially he forgot, then suddenly remembered. That's what you're saying.

What's makes you believe he forgot what Terri told him? Do you have anything beyond mere personal speculation? I didn't think so.

"I'm no expert on the subject, but I saw her eyes moving in that video."

I never said her eyes couldn't move. I said she was blind. Her eye movement was totally random and beyond any conscious control.

If you're referring to the balloon video, that was edited and fake. Her eyes didn't follow the balloon -- the balloon followed her eyes.

"The mother testified but, under cross examination, retracted her statement. Why did the mother initially lie?" Oh come on! Under cross examination, people often have their intentions twisted and you know it. "My guess is that "her parents could have used that $700,000 in that they filed for bankruptcy a few years earlier." The Schnidler's wanted her money to be used for her care -- something Michael refused to do for her.

"Actually, Michael, his brother, and his brother's wife all testified in court as to what Terri told them." Oh yeah the wife of Michael's brother. I forgot. And she really adds to the preponderance of the evidence! "Why didn't they testify?" What could they say? They knew Terri. They knew her faith. That obviously doesn't carry much weight with Judge Greer. The one friend, Diane Meyer, who did testify as to Terri's wishes, in recounting a discussion of the Quinlan case, was totally discounted based on the Judge's incorrect assumptions about the timeline.

"His agenda was to fulfill her wish. Period. What agenda are you talking about?" Uhhhhhhh.....another woman and children by that other woman come to mind. "The money? He offered, in writing, to give it all away to charity. What agenda?" So what has become of that money now that he succeeded in killing off Schiavo? Do you know what happened to it? Was there even any left? Incidentally, the autopsy indicated Schiavo did not suffer from an eating disorder. So it would seem to me that the insurance company representing the doctor in the lawsuit should get the money back. What Schiavo seemed to forget in his arrogance is that the money wasn't his to give. (Not in spirit anyway.) It wasn't intended for him -- it was for Terri's care.

"The judge did. He heard all the testimony. He heard the cross examinations. He watched the mannerisms. And it wasn't just Michael's testimony." No -- it wasn't just Michael's testimony -- it was that of his brother and brother's wife. Big deal! Funny how no one who actually knew Schiavo her whole life knows these things --just the husband who wants her dead and his family. So I take it Florida judges are infallable and impartial in your opinion? Well, you and Gore agree on that!

"You say Michael "suddenly remembered"? Which means he forgot. Initially he forgot, then suddenly remembered. That's what you're saying.What's makes you believe he forgot what Terri told him? " I don't think he forgot anything. Putting suddenly remembered in quotes, as you well know, is my not-so-subtle way of saying he made it up. What makes me believe that? Because he never said a word about Terri's alleged wish initially. It wasn't until years later -- when the money started dwindling and a new woman came along? -- that he "remembered" her wish.

The bottom line is there was no proof of what her wish was. The only indication we have is the word of someone that -- according to the court-appointed guardian -- did not have Terri's best interests at heart. Given the reasonable doubt, the judge should have erred on the side of life. I believe in karma though.

"Under cross examination, people often have their intentions twisted and you know it."

Her mother retracted her statement. She admitted she was wrong.

"The Schnidler's wanted her money to be used for her care"

More correctly, the Schindlers wanted to personally care for their daughter, meaning they would control the money meant for Terri's care.

"The one friend, Diane Meyer, who did testify as to Terri's wishes, in recounting a discussion of the Quinlan case, was totally discounted based on the Judge's incorrect assumptions about the timeline."

That's it, isn't it? One friend testified out of the thousands who maintained she had no such wish. Diane Meyer's testimony was correctly discounted, and the judge's misquote had nothing to do with the reason.

"So what has become of that money now that he succeeded in killing off Schiavo? Do you know what happened to it?"

No. Do you?

"So it would seem to me that the insurance company representing the doctor in the lawsuit should get the money back"

You are correct. They should.

"It wasn't intended for him -- it was for Terri's care."

Correct. So why are people saying that Michael wanted her dead in order to get the money? Similar to what you said, it wasn't his to get.

"So I take it Florida judges are infallable and impartial in your opinion?"

Infallible? No. But this method of determination is the one the Florida citizens chose. Impartial? I have no reason to believe he wasn't impartial. Do you believe he was biased?

"is my not-so-subtle way of saying he made it up."

He and his brother and his brother's wife, you mean. The three of them conspired. Why would the three of them do that? Or, I should ask, why do you believe the three of them did that?

"It wasn't until years later -- when the money started dwindling and a new woman came along? -- that he "remembered" her wish."

It was when he became convinced that Terri was not going to recover.

"The bottom line is there was no proof of what her wish was. The only indication we have is the word of someone that -- according to the court-appointed guardian -- did not have Terri's best interests at heart."

You want to know what the bottom line is? The bottom line is that, despite the fact that you've admitted that Michael AND his brother AND his brother's wife all testified that Terri wouldn't want to live like that, you continue to lie and say we only had Michael's word for it -- how do you do that, mentally? How do you make that shift in your brain? Facts don't matter? What's going on?

So Michael didn't have Terri's best interests at heart. The same Michael who was awarded Guardian of the Year? That Michael?

Oh, the guardian, Pearse, who made those biased comments was discharged shortly thereafter.

It looked better before her husband tried to murder her.

But it was fine for the state to finish the job for him after it looked like the one on the right.

Open mouth, insert foot.

Open mouth, insert foot.

And for the first time ever! (LOL)

I was nailed -- I need to remember that ASS-U-ME thing...

:-)

More correctly, the Schindlers wanted to personally care for their daughter, meaning they would control the money meant for Terri's care. Horseradish! They got involved only after Schiavo made a move to have Terri's rehabilitation stopped --- which happened conveniently after Schiavo got the first of the insurance money in 1992-93. Funny that Terri's alleged wish was never brought up by Michael during the malpractice trial when he was trying to get money for her care, isn't it?

That's it, isn't it? One friend testified out of the thousands who maintained she had no such wish. Diane Meyer's testimony was correctly discounted, and the judge's misquote had nothing to do with the reason. Of course, she would be it. How many opportunities would a young, healthy woman have to specifically discuss her wishes on such a subject? Meyer's testimony is relevant because it refers to a specific discussion. If friends were going to lie, why would they have just one person lie? Her loved ones knew Terri and knew how she felt, but that is a far cry from having a specific conservsation. And don't tell me the judge's misquote had nothing to do with the reason she was discounted -- it was the reason he cited!

"So what has become of that money now that he succeeded in killing off Schiavo? Do you know what happened to it?" No. Do you? No, I don't know. I do know that Schiavo paid for his lawyer with that money.

Correct. So why are people saying that Michael wanted her dead in order to get the money? Similar to what you said, it wasn't his to get. Because even though, in spirit, it wasn't his to get, technically he would have control of the money -- especially when a dead woman doesn't need any care. If it wasn't about the money for Schiavo, why did he turn around and have her care revoked soon after the insurance money came in? Why sue for malpractice money for the express purpose of her care when he allegedly knew it was her wish not to live in such a situation?

Infallible? No. But this method of determination is the one the Florida citizens chose. Impartial? I have no reason to believe he wasn't impartial. Do you believe he was biased? I believe that when the judge takes the word of a man who has every motive to see his wife dead over the word of the court-appointed guardian it is reasonable to suspect he is biased.

He and his brother and his brother's wife, you mean. The three of them conspired. Why would the three of them do that? Or, I should ask, why do you believe the three of them did that? It is fairly obvious why Michael did it. He wanted to rid of Terri. Why would his brother lie? To help out his brother, of course. Brothers have been known to lie for each other. It isn't even unprecedented for a brother to lie for his brother -- even help cover up -- murder. Why would the wife lie? Same reason -- she's helping her husband. Maybe Michael's brother has the same dominant personality Michael has when it comes to women. I wouldn't be surprised if, should something go wrong in that marriage, we hear a different story from the wife. Incidentally, when Michael first "remembered" this wish, he told Pearson that he was only one who knew of Terri's wish. It wasn't until two months later that the brother and wife "remembered."

It was when he became convinced that Terri was not going to recover. Really???? So did Terri give Michael some sort of a time limit for how long she was supposed to linger before it was clear she wouldn't recover? It is amazing how revoking one's rehabilitation immediately after the insurance money starts pouring in can reduce the odds of recovery! 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 -- especially when he announced his engagement to another woman in 1997. It would seem to me that an engaged man has an agenda to get married and, unless I'm mistaken, bigamy is illegal in Florida. Since he refused to divorce Terri, it seems pretty clear he had to make something happen.

The bottom line is that, despite the fact that you've admitted that Michael AND his brother AND his brother's wife all testified that Terri wouldn't want to live like that, you continue to lie and say we only had Michael's word for it -- how do you do that, mentally? How do you make that shift in your brain? Facts don't matter? What's going on? Easy, as I stated before, Schiavo initially claimed he was the only one who knew of her wishes. It was only after Pearson made his recommendation against Michael, noting that no one witnessed Terri's alleged wish, that the brother and wife "remembered". As far as I am concerned, they are one entity. It would be different if there were mutual friends who testified to that.

So Michael didn't have Terri's best interests at heart. The same Michael who was awarded Guardian of the Year? LOL! For what year? Yes, that Michael! John Wayne Gacy was given many accolades for his civic service to little boys -- it doesn't mean he wasn't a monster!

Oh, the guardian, Pearse, who made those biased comments was discharged shortly thereafter. Oh! So the guardian makes a report based on what Schiavo tells him and he is "biased"? But the judge who discharged him couldn't possibly be biased? Sorry, anyone who looks at the timeline has reason to raise eyebrows at Michael. The fact that Greer would disregard a court-appointed guardian in favor of the word of a man who was already engaged to another woman when he petitioned to have his wife dehydrated to death speaks volumes about Greer's judgment. I am convinced that we will one day learn the truth about all this and it will either come from Michael's new wife Jodi, or his sister-in-law Joan.

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

So is it what Terri wants or what Michael wants? Was he lying about her wishes or was he lying to Larry King?

"They got involved only after Schiavo made a move to have Terri's rehabilitation stopped"

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.

"Funny that Terri's alleged wish was never brought up by Michael during the malpractice trial when he was trying to get money for her care, isn't it?"

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".

"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.

And don't tell me the judge's misquote had nothing to do with the reason she was discounted -- it was the reason he cited! "

It was the judge who said it changed nothing. Do you need a link to the opinion where he says exacly that?

"I do know that Schiavo paid for his lawyer with that money."

With permission. I blame her parents for that -- for bringing all the frivolous cases, none of which they won.

"Because even though, in spirit, it wasn't his to get, technically he would have control of the money

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.

"To help out his brother, of course. Why would the wife lie? Same reason ..."

So all three of them lied under oath as to what Terri told them. OK. Well, that certainly explains that. They lied.

"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.

"So the guardian makes a report based on what Schiavo tells him and he is "biased"?"

The guardian failed to mention in the report that the Schindlers had a financial interest if they were the caregivers. The guardian failed to mention that Michael said he would give up the money, thereby removing his interest. Yeah, he was biased.

Excellent post, I knew immediately what they were trying to do with this comparison. I've worked in the CADCAM field since I was 18 and I could tell right away the different angle taken through the skull, heck anyone could. Just looking at the thickness of the cross section of the skull tells me about high up the crown this was taken, I would love to see an apples to apples comparison and judge for myself.

"So is it what Terri wants or what Michael wants?"

Earlier in that same interview, Michael says, "I won't give it up. Terri is my life. I'm going to carry out her wishes to the very end. This is what she wanted. It's not about the Schindlers, it's not about me, not about Congress, it's about Terri."

Sounds to me it's about what Terri wants.

From an earlier October, 2003 interview with Larry King:

KING: Walk away.
SCHIAVO: Why should I, Larry? This is Terri's wish. This is Terri's choice.

SCHIAVO: This is Terri's wish. And I'm going to follow that wish, if it's the last thing I can do for Terri. I love Terri deeply. And I'm going to follow it up for Terri.

KING: That's what we asked a few times. You're saying it's purely based on that promise?
SCHIAVO: Purely based on her wishes.

SCHIAVO: The parents also testified in court that they didn't know what Terri's wish was. It's what they wanted. This is what they want for Terri. So basically it wasn't about Terri anymore. It was about what the Schindlers wanted. Her brother testified it brings them joy.

So, based on the above, when Michael said in the last interview, "But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." he was relating what the Schindlers said in court, quote we didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want... unquote.

Larry King, an experienced interviewer, certainly didn't see anything odd. Why didn't Larry King say, "Whoa! You didn't know what she wanted? But you said you did."

Thanks for clarifying the scam scan.