Posted on 06/19/2005 6:04:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
Oh yeah, that is a peer reviewed site in an area sanctioned by the American Medical Association. NOT
I have yet to see a valid explanation as to why MS perjured himself in court when he testified under oath he would care for her for her LIFE EXPECTANCY, and then discontinued her rehab and petitioned the court to kill her after he received his money.
I believe he claimed he cured someone with attention deficit disorder. He has NEVER used his hyperbaric treatment on anyone in a persistant vegetative state. In fact, he has never treated anyone in a minimally conscious state with his new "cure". So if he has never treated them with his magic cure he certainly didnt cure them with it.
I appreciate you looking out for my legal well being. Does this help?
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/FinalOrders/03-17-03/DOH-03-0182.pdf
It doesn't make the slightest difference to me whether he was nominated or not. That's argumentum ad hominem and a waste of time.
You may want to review your Latin. I wasn't attacking you or anyone, simply pointing out that your reference to his nomination probably had no bearing on his qualifications. After all, it seemed to make a difference to you in the post to which I responded. Since his qualifications are the essence of the credibility of his recent statements, questioning those qualifications is hardly argumentum ad hominem.
I doubt that the Shindlers lied, but I would understand that if they did shade a truth, they did so to save their daughter's life.
Michea Schiavo, however, his lies are so easy to his lips, and easier still when he lied and encouraged others to lie in order to kill the woman who once was his wife. That is my opinion.
The Australian fellow who lied. He's a hero. He's apologized to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair -- though no apology was needed from a man in that situtation. His lying captors are hunted like the dogs they are.
You mean like Stephen J. Nelson, the neuropathologist?
Whoops, looks like they did let another doctor "in".
You could be more wrong in your postings, but it's hard to see how.
Keep trying. I'm sure you'll top yourself in the lies you emit.
Behold, the type of person allowed to post at will here. What a sorry pass it's come to.
Why is everyone according to your side a mudering, conspratorial, euthanasist loving, Democrat shill from DU? I can admit that erring on the side of life is a defensible position but one with which I disagree. I can also admit that the Schindlers got due process in court. I can also accept facts as opposed to lies (Nobel nominee)Terri's heart attack (red herring, no one ever claimed heart attack, it was cardiac arrest but it Dr H who first brought it up in court proceeding where he attempted to confuse matters by saying it wasnt a heart attack when no one had ever said it was).
When given the choice between accepting court testimony under oath, the reports of the various Guardian Ad Litems, and the Medical Examiners autopsy versus the self promoting hype of a quack like Dr H, its damn easy.
You don't say!
Good grief...have you noticed the insane posts made on this topic? You are pretty selective when it comes to piping about about potential libel.
You do this all the time. Point after point that you assert gets proven wrong and you simply shrug and say it's not important and you move on to the next faulty supposition.
It is important if he claimed something that was not so. It undermines his credibility and casts doubt (to say the least) on his pronouncements, especially this latest analysis of the autopsy.
In this case, sad to say that yes, Jeb Bush is grandstanding.
Then present the evidence that he has helped anyone. He was asked to do so and did (could?) not.
"Now who was it the other day who was saying NewsMax was so dang reliable?"
WND? LOL
They went with story too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1426338/posts?q=1&&page=51
There is no group. Best to address your argument to someone about things they have directly said.
Deserves repeating...
By the way, I like your style mon ami.
"Our thread within the thread was if he ever did anything wrong or was convicted of it."
Is that the criteria BJS? For that matter Michael Jackson and OJ weren't convicted either.
No, the appropriate comparison is not asking for a second opinion, it is going to Mexico or Central American for cancer treatment when your doctor and every other qualified doctor has said there is NOTHING else that can be done.
Facts and direct science in front of your eyes do not lie. If the brain was found to be intact and not mush - then that is fact.
Read the autopsy report. The brain was NOT intact, it was NOT merely shrunken in size due to lack of food and water, chunks of it were missing and had been for more than ten years. There was more spinal fluid in her skull than brain.
If she were swallowing saliva - then clearly her swallowing was not impaired. I now question whether a feeding tube was needed in the first place - or was it perhaps a first step in the plan of her demise?
My mother had a feeding tube for more than five years before she died. She could swallow saliva but she couldnt swallow food. Swallowing saliva when your head is continuoulsy tilted back is no big deal.
"The forensic doctor could pretty much say anything he wanted"
How could he do so and have it comport with the 247 pictures taken, the fluids lab tests and medical slide samples taken of the tissue much less with all the historical documentation of the patient?
Yep---NewsMax and WND ran with this nonsense.
I'll say that overall WND has the edge on kookery.
It's sad and as EveningStar's dream goes, they COULD rectify their habit of playing fast and loose with the facts but it's not looking promising.
"Ok, is breathing considered to be originated by the brain or is it considered a behavioral response?"
Both.
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.