Q. Okay. And, over time, then, what would happen to the 3 kidneys? 4 A. Anybody that actually was obstructed for that period of 5 time could potentially have some acute renal failure. 6 Q. Okay. And is that a life-threatening problem? 7 A. Yes.
What I presented in 63 was not my summary, it was the summary by Patterico (you won't attack him for it, will you?), but it was an accurate portrayal of the doctor's testimony, which I have provided for you above (not that you needed it, you know the testimony and where to find it).
I never said he had a continuing life-threatening problem. I said the doctor testified that his injuries were life-threatening. That is what the doctor said. Of course the treatment he received mitigated the threat. Nobody has said otherwise.
Your post suggested that "life-threatening" was an inaccurate, and now you've said "misleading" comment, but it was not.
I'm trying my best to be precise and reference the testimony. In this case the testimony was pages and Patterico had done an good job summarizing it AND providing the page references (I apologize that I didn't include the pdf name reference).
We both agree that his injury was not likely life-threatening after his visit to Mexico (any treatment in Mexico would of course run the risk of an infection, as would having a bag, so there was a non-zero increase in threat, but I'm ignoring that for the sake of getting some minor agreement with you.
And we both agree that his injury was serious. I never said you didn't think it was, until you treated the doctor's testimony about being life-threatening as a sarcastic comment.
You did specifically complain in post 116 about my statement regarding pro-C/Rs, and I even apologized for it, so saying now that you didn't doesn't make sense to me.
And I'm glad that you don't disagree with the Doctor's testimony. And hopefully with the quotes from the transcript, we won't have any additional people claiming that it wasn't testimony.
Your trivial distinction about the manner in which it would be life-threatening is noted. Since I never provided the reason why it was life-threatening, nor were my comments any more than a simple statement of the fact of the testimony, it was not misleading. You in fact are trying to mislead people by suggesting I made more of something than I did, and by pretending the testimony wasn't testimony simply because I didn't quote the exact testimony.
You said that his injuries were life threatening, which was not true. Renal failure can be life threatening, a risk that was eliminated when he had a catheter inserted by a Mexican clinic. In addition to the catheter, you said that he required "surgery to fix the life-threatening problem," also not true.
Post #63: "In summary, the shooting left Davila unable to pee. He needed a catheter to drain, and surgery to fix the life-threatening problem. This was a serious operation requiring medical experts, and he now uses a bladder bag. "Post #69: "... the guy would have life-threatening injuries from the shooting which required extensive surgery."
Post #77: "The doctor that treated him said the injuries were serious, life-threatening, and required extensive surgery to correct, and might not ever be fully corrected."
Post #105: "I’ve already had to prove that “limp” was in the testimony at the trial, and that Davila had life-threatening injuries that required special surgery."
Post #159: "I’ve shown that the medical doctors testified his injury was life-threatening, required specialized surgery (with a second doctor who was an expert)"
I said the doctor testified that his injuries were life-threatening. That is what the doctor said. Of course the treatment he received mitigated the threat. Nobody has said otherwise.
One more time--that is not what he said. He testifed that Renal Failure is life-threatening. Renal failure was not a risk once the catheter was inserted--In Mexico. Surgery was not required, at all; theoretically he could choose to use the catheter for life. Surgery was a preference, to try to reconnect the plumbing so that the catheter would not be required.
Your post suggested that "life-threatening" was an inaccurate, and now you've said "misleading" comment, but it was not.
See above. I rest my case.