Terri Schiavo's Neurologists' Report Released

[giddyup]

Here's the link to the full story: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/30/144422.shtml?j=910939&e=richard@triad.rr.com&l=143149_HTML&u=17048777


Here's a couple of things that I found interesting:

"Top Neurologist's Report on Terri Released
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Here is a comprehensive report by Dr. William Hammesfahr, a world-reknowned neurologist, on Terri Schiavo's condition as of September 12, 2002:

Re: Terri Schiavo

I was asked to examine Terri Schiavo per the request of the Second District Court of Appeal. They requested that current information about her present medical condition be obtained. They also requested that an evaluation be performed to ascertain treatment options.

Ms Schiavo was in her usual state of good health until 2/25/90, when her husband reported that he was awakened from sleep approximately 6 Am by her falling. He reports that she was unresponsive.

Paramedics were called, and aggressive resuscitation was performed with 7 defibrillations en route.

In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's did not show evidence of a heart attack. Similarly, a pulmonary or lung cause of the disorder was ruled out in the Emergency Room after normal blood gases and Chest X-Rays were obtained. The possibility of toxic shock syndrome was also entertained. The diagnosis of the cause of her condition was unknown. Her admission laboratory studies showed low potassium level, markedly elevated glucose level, and a normal toxic screen without evidence of diet pills or amphetamines....

.... Interestingly, I have seen this pattern of mixed brain (cerebral) and spinal cord findings in a patient once before, a patient who was asphyxiated....


William M. Hammesfahr, M.D."


I had always heard that she had a heart attack and that's what caused her problems. Do medical people use the word "asphysiation" to imply something purposeful or can it also be applied to cases of simple oxygen deprivation for non-criminal reasons?

[basso]

Originally posted by giddyup
Here's the link to the full story: [url]


I had always heard that she had a heart attack and that's what caused her problems. Do medical people use the word "asphysiation" to imply something purposeful or can it also be applied to cases of simple oxygen deprivation for non-criminal reasons?

under the emerging "new moon standard" for felonious intent, evidence of "asphixiation" is proof positive a crime has been committed. throw him in jail! no need to wait for an indictment!

[No Worries]

I was asked to examine Terri Schiavo per the request of the Second District Court of Appeal. ... William M. Hammesfahr, M.D.

It would appear that the Second District Court of Appeal did not find Dr. Hammesfahr credible.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by No Worries
I was asked to examine Terri Schiavo per the request of the Second District Court of Appeal. ... William M. Hammesfahr, M.D.

It would appear that the Second District Court of Appeal did not find Dr. Hammesfahr credible.
Wasn't this report back in 2002? This is not the most recent examination. I would gather that the finding of this older report in fact kept her alive at that time.

At any rate, the most compelling aspect to me is the finding of no heart attack all the way back to the immediate afermath of the event and that in conjunction with the findings consistent with asphyxiation.

Why have we never heard this before? Or had you heard it?

[Sishir Chang]

From what I've heard Dr. Hammesfehr hasn't been found credible by most neurological associations.

The report that has been most frequently cited for is by Dr. Jay Wolfson who was jointly appointed by the FL courts and Gov. Jeb Bush.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

[Oski2005]

What's the basis for the "world renowned" tag? This is the guy who calls himself a Nobel Prize nominee when he was only falsely nominated by a US rep who doesn't have the power to nominate people for the Nobel Prize.

This guy claims that he can help people who are in comas, but he has never published any findings or results in a single peer reviewed medical journal. This guy is a huckster who has been been giving Terri's parents false hope for years now.

Of course he has published some things online, but it's an online journal called "Lifelines," which is part of a website called MedForum. The site is registered to somebody at the exact same address as one of his offices.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Oski2005
This guy is a huckster who has been been giving Terri's parents false hope for years now.



Why else would it appear on NewsMax.com, the sewage tank of the internet?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
under the emerging "new moon standard" for felonious intent, evidence of "asphixiation" is proof positive a crime has been committed. throw him in jail! no need to wait for an indictment!

:rolleyes:

[No Worries]

Read more about Dr. Hammesfehr here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290005

I would gather that the finding of this older report in fact kept her alive at that time.

It is my understanding that Terri Schiavo's parent continuous appeals are what keep her alive for the last seven years.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by No Worries
Read more about Dr. Hammesfehr here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290005

I would gather that the finding of this older report in fact kept her alive at that time.

It is my understanding that Terri Schiavo's parent continuous appeals are what keep her alive for the last seven years.
Then why did that suddenly fail?

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
Then why did that suddenly fail?

Probably because it was found to be not credible.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by giddyup
Then why did that suddenly fail?
The appeals process can not go on forever, right?

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by giddyup
Then why did that suddenly fail?

My guess would be that you can't keep appealing court decisions forever.

[Oski2005]

Also, was this guy "Terri Schiavo's Neurologist?" He only examined her for like 10 hours. Weren't there other Neurologists who spent more time on her case?

[giddyup]

I guess I'm confused. The date on this report is 2002.

Did Terri, in fact, not have a heart attack in 1990? That is according to this report not a new finding.

Is this finding of asphyxiation completely off the wall-- as some of you are insinuating but not saying outright?

[Severe Rockets Fan]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Also, was this guy "Terri Schiavo's Neurologist?" He only examined her for like 10 hours. Weren't there other Neurologists who spent more time on her case?
There was one in 98' who said she wouldn't recover and that her"skull was only filled with spinal fluid, no brain." He examined her for 10 mins...He sounds like a quack. Did you guys know that she was generally responsive 3 years ago? She sat up, could drink, could move her eyes while tracking objects, grunt, identify her parents (although when it came to her husband she generally ignored him, hmmmmm), and even had some limb mobility...hell, they said she had a strong right leg. This doesn't sound like someone that's a total vegetable...she sure wasn't in a coma. The whole thing sounds strange. Poor gal. :(

After reading the msnbc interview with cranford he says that 7 or 8 neuro guys assessed her and all said she was in a persistent vegetative state. I wish I could see their reports and her CT/MR scans, it sounds like some damn trial with everyone saying different things and proclaiming the others as quacks (much like the Steve Francis debates around here ;) ). Those damn HIPP laws!

[Severe Rockets Fan]

Originally posted by giddyup
Did Terri, in fact, not have a heart attack in 1990? That is according to this report not a new finding.

No, they said they ran blood chemistry and EKG's and they showed no evidence of a heart attack on her 1990 ER visit.

[kpsta]

Is Dr. William M. Hammesfahr by any chance related to Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Severe Rockets Fan
No, they said they ran blood chemistry and EKG's and they showed no evidence of a heart attack on her 1990 ER visit.
Well, I was asking that rhetirically because the common "knowledge" is that she had a heart attack... when in fact she did not.

Why is this finding in common with asphyxiation not more unsettling to people?

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by Severe Rockets Fan
There was one in 98' who said she wouldn't recover and that her"skull was only filled with spinal fluid, no brain." He examined her for 10 mins...He sounds like a quack.

I saw the CAT scans on TV and they show large parts of her brain gone. On the contrary most of the doctors who've said that she brain damaged beyond recovery and not conscious are the ones who've been considered credible which is why every court has agreed. Including ones made up of judges who are Republicans or have been appointed by Republicans.

Did you guys know that she was generally responsive 3 years ago? She sat up, could drink, could move her eyes while tracking objects, grunt, identify her parents (although when it came to her husband she generally ignored him, hmmmmm), and even had some limb mobility...hell, they said she had a strong right leg. This doesn't sound like someone that's a total vegetable...she sure wasn't in a coma. The whole thing sounds strange. Poor gal. :(

Find that very doubtful because if she could swallow they wouldn't have used a feeding tube implanted in her stomach which they feed her a liquified diet.

After reading the msnbc interview with cranford he says that 7 or 8 neuro guys assessed her and all said she was in a persistent vegetative state. I wish I could see their reports and her CT/MR scans, it sounds like some damn trial with everyone saying different things and proclaiming the others as quacks (much like the Steve Francis debates around here ;) ). Those damn HIPP laws!

All of the contradictory evidence to her state has been found not credible by the courts. Even the guardian ad liteum jointly appointed by the court and Gov. Jeb Bush agreed that she was in a persistive vegetative state beyond recovery.

For those who believe she wasn't you have to question why has every judiciary from FL to the US Supreme court not accepted that?

Is their a conspiracy that reaches all the way from Michael Schiavo to Antonin Scalia?

Which is more probable massive conspiracy among doctors and the judiciary or that she really is irrepairably brain damaged?

[No Worries]

Originally posted by giddyup
Why is this finding in common with asphyxiation not more unsettling to people?
Because the guy who is making the allegations is quack paid by the parents.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by No Worries
Because the guy who is making the allegations is quack paid by the parents.
Well then what about the fact that she did not have a heart attack as the precipitating event? That was on her medical record from 1990 forward....

[Sishir Chang]

Since this issue has come up in all of the Terry Schiavo threads here's a link with a picture of her 2002 CAT scan along with commentary from Dr. Cranford who examined her.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/

Note the large dark areas in the middle of her brain.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Since this issue has come up in all of the Terry Schiavo threads here's a link with a picture of her 2002 CAT scan along with commentary from Dr. Cranford who examined her.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/

Note the large dark areas in the middle of her brain.

Why bother. Everyone knows you can regrow a new brain after you've been brain damaged! A miracle was coming! Randall Terry told me, so it must be true!!!!

:rolleyes:

[Severe Rockets Fan]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
I saw the CAT scans on TV and they show large parts of her brain gone. On the contrary most of the doctors who've said that she brain damaged beyond recovery and not conscious are the ones who've been considered credible which is why every court has agreed. Including ones [b]made up of judges who are Republicans or have been appointed by Republicans.
I see, so what I read was a false assessment by a guy paid by the parent to gather some evidence that would possibly keep her alive. Gotcha. This is actually the first time I've ever seen any details about this case...man, I never even heard about it once and it's been going on since 90'? LOL. I need to crawl out from under my rock more often. :D

[Refman]

I see everybody talking about CAT scans. The fact of the matter is that an MRI would have been the appropriate "picture" to have had. This is what my father-in-law, a neurologist, has a large problem with. He cannot understand how a determination was made without the benefit of an MRI.

[Mori]

Originally posted by Refman
I see everybody talking about CAT scans. The fact of the matter is that an MRI would have been the appropriate "picture" to have had. This is what my father-in-law, a neurologist, has a large problem with. He cannot understand how a determination was made without the benefit of an MRI.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a neurologist, nor do I know one or play one on TV)

From what I've read, the CAT scan was more than enough to show large areas of her brain (particularly her cerebral cortex, which controls higher brain functions) were missing. Also, she could not have an MRI done on her due to metal in her head from an experimental treatment. Beyond the scans, there were supposedly many other factors used in her diagnosis as well, including an EEG and long term observation showing no ability to react to outside stimuli (though I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the diagnostic criteria of PVS).

[dylan]

Originally posted by Refman
I see everybody talking about CAT scans. The fact of the matter is that an MRI would have been the appropriate "picture" to have had. This is what my father-in-law, a neurologist, has a large problem with. He cannot understand how a determination was made without the benefit of an MRI.

This is actually dylan's wife, Della. And, for whatever it's worth, I'm a neuroscientist.

A CAT (computer assisted tomography) scan and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) will show essentially the same thing, that is the structure of the brain tissue. What your father-in-law was likely wanting to see was an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), which will show not only the structure of the brain, but the relative activity of areas within the brain.

In this case, if Mrs. Schaivo did have metal in her skull, then she would not have been able to undergo either the MRI or fMRI procedures, as they use mind-bogglingly huge magnets to image the brain. However, the CAT scan was more than capable of showing exactly how much damage there was to the cortex.

If you look at the dark spot in the middle of the CAT scan and compare it to a normal scan, you can see exactly how much of that tissue is gone, and the tissue that is missing is responsible for pretty much everything that makes us human, including speech and higher thought processes.

The undamaged tissue, which included the brainstem, is responsible for breathing and certain reflexive (not conscious) actions, such as breathing and some simple movements, like movements of the eyes.

[dylan]

Sorry for the double post, but I just remembered one more thing.

Mori had just mentioned the flat EEG. What that tells us is that there is no activity in the cortex. This is expected, since the CAT scan revealed that the cortex had pretty much been replaced by cerebrospinal fluid, which is nifty stuff, but can't do much in the way of thinking.

Anyway, between the CAT scan and the EEG, we have most of the information that an fMRI would give us.

--Della

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
under the emerging "new moon standard" for felonious intent, evidence of "asphixiation" is proof positive a crime has been committed. throw him in jail! no need to wait for an indictment! Basso, are you really that upset about the Plame felony that you can't let it go? Is it because you had pinned such strong hopes on the legal brief, and were so disappointed when it was shown to not clear the felon of having committed a crime?

The evidence in that case far surpasses anything posted here. Your own post of the statute in the Plame case illustrates clearly that a felony was committed.

You seem to be making a mistake about what indictments are for too.

Indictments are not meant to be brought against a crime.

Indictments are brought against the person who committed the crime.

If there was a crime committed but no indictment is ever brought, the crime was still committed. It just means they don't have evidence against a specific person.