User talk:Neuroscientist/Archive1

'''This is Archive 1 of Neuroscientist's Talk page. Current discussions and links to other archives may be found here'''.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 04:26 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt
Salve! I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo
Thanks for stopping by the talk page. We could sure use your expertise. But we have a couple (like Mr. Dave, as you call him) who aren't interested in being proved wrong, so it would be an exercise in tenacity, but it would be nice to have a tempering influence on some of the sentient ones in the group.

" can see that a lot of the medical/autopsy data is being subtly miswritten (by both sides, both unintentionally and intentionally) " Am I in the "unintentionally miswritten" group (it certainly wouldn't be intentionally, I assure you)?

Although I am not a doctor (or lawyer), my wife is an RN, BSN, CRNA who, although not a doctor, either, has well over 30 years of experience and whenever I have a question about whether what I'm writing is correct, I pass it by her for at least some measure of assurance. I also have some lawyer friends with whom I do the same on legal matters (and as was mentioned, we have at least one lawyer on staff). So I hope that my stuff is at least a little more accurate than some of the obviously misinformed posts.

Irrespective of that, I do wish you would stop by more frequently and throw some checks and balance into the equation. Duckecho 13:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there Duck. Thank you for your questions. That judgement, that substantial bits of the medical/neuroscientific/autopsy facts and findings have been "subtly miswritten," was based mainly on reading the relevant sections in the main article. It would be difficult for me to determine from the impossibly lengthy Talk pages and Histories who precisely wrote what, and when, so I cannot (and do not wish to) point accusatory fingers (also, this would likely not be helpful). I have formed some opinions by reading the latest version of the talk page - contrary to your fears, in my opnion, your contributions are mostly very good, if the talk page is any indication.


 * By "unintentional miswriting" (yes, horribly clunky phrase, sorry, I was trying to get my point across quickly) I mean those assertions on technical matters that are written with less precision than they could be - where it is apparent that the reason for the imprecision is not prejudice but unfamiliarity with the subject.


 * For example, the latest brouhaha over Dr. Cheshire's statements and the extent to which the autopsy "repudiated" him stem at least in part from a poor understanding of the neuroscience of vision, and the neurology of eye movements. Now, there are some things in his affidavit that doctors/neurologists can point to that are not evidence-based (ie. lack support from the literature); I myself was critical of some of his conclusions when they came out. However, Cheshire is a very well trained neurologist and is no charlatan; it is in fact entirely possible for some of the phenomena he described to have occured (for example, Terri's eyes "looking" at objects), but people who don't understand the neural basis of vision and eye movement may think this could not have occured because of the loss of her occipital lobe. That would be untrue. It is likely that Cheshire's interpretation of the phenomena (and probably recording of the phenomena, eg. "maintained eye contact for half a minute") were wrong or mistaken, but I would not at all imply that something like eye movement or brief fixation could never have occured (which is what some people seem to be suggesting on the Talk page).


 * So, yeah, this sort of thing is very complex. It is best when dealing with topics like this to go straight to the primary sources and always stick to the facts (I'm speaking generally here, Duck, I don't mean you particularly) for example, "Dr. Chesire in his affidavit said that Schiavo could not track visually for long periods, or consistently, but he did observe that she did XYZ for ABC seconds." Later when the autopsy is being discussed, also stick to the facts: "Examination of the occipital cortex showed BCDEF; the Examiner concluded that this was inconsistent with sight." An explanation reconciling the findings can then be written, as long as it is factual and unbiased.


 * When I have the time I might write a brief primer on the talk page explaining the basics of the relevant neuro-ophthalmology. ~ Neuroscientist 14:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also add that I don't think it's necessary or commendable to include a lot of technical detail in a Wiki article. But I do think that the better that people who are writing on technical issues understand their subject, the clearer and more accurate the article becomes.~ Neuroscientist 15:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your wikiquette is just fine, so far as I'm concerned. The response here is convenient for continuity if nothing else. I haven't played much in the Cheshire debate other than dealing with how best to couch the commentary. Yes, I take your point about trying to ascribe a value of seeing or looking to someone's eye movement or lack of it which may have organic origins entirely unrelated to vision (if I have paraphrased your point correctly). Actually, I may just weigh in with that perspective and move to strike altogether. The subject is so very heavily laden with emotion on both sides (I don't think there is a neutral side on this) it's easy to get sidetracked with one's own cant at every turn. Thanks for responding. Duckecho 15:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, welcome aboard! It's always good to have a clear, strong voice join the choir, even if we sing different parts. :-] --ghost 13:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ghost .~ Neuroscientist 14:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you have a thick skin (re NCdave's lecture to you on Talk). It's a shame that the need for one should arise. You've also been wattsed, too, I see. It's much like being slimed, if you remember Ghostbusters. Duckecho (Talk) 15:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL. Thanks for the heads up, Duck. I've just seen it. No worries, I have long experience with online discussions (probably too long, lol), and NCDave is far from formidable. I'll reply him later, but I shan't invest a lot in it. NCDave is a man with his mind completely made up, so discussion is futile. He cannot learn something new and try to see how that alters the candidate conclusions; he  has already decided the conclusion, and is interested only in twisting everything to fit it. The closed, unthinking mind is a tragedy everywhere it exists.~ Neuroscientist


 * If the mood strikes and you'd like to share a chat, I can be reached at @gmail.com. You strike me as someone I would enjoy corresponding with. You may find I'm not as shallow as I appear here on wiki. Duckecho (Talk) 00:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll remember that. Be warned that I'm bad with emails though - I'm currently on a light(er) schedule, but its usually merciless. Oh, and you are not at all shallow. ~ Neuroscientist 04:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

"You, NCDave, have posted a 2,058-character reply which nevertheless does not address a single word to the question I posed." Oooohh!! There's a new sheriff in town! Welcome to our world. This is the problem we've had with him for months. Fuelwagon coined the phrase whack-a-mole logic to describe debating with him. You have crystalized the essence of that eloquently. Duckecho (Talk) 04:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol. It's a bit sad though. I wonder what it must feel like to be a man who can't change his mind. On whom reason bounces off, with no effect, no trace of any impact or influence of any kind.

..tactical brilliance? Why, sir, you make me blush. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)


 * BTW, where you endoring FW's shorter suggested edit, or my more legalese one (with the mention of the source of the ruling)?--ghost 30 June 2005 13:09 (UTC)

Schiavo Mediation
No problem. It would be hard indeed to discern that anyone was moderating that discussion. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:13, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, both Gordon and myself support you being involved in the mediation. The fact that you were on Wikibreak when it was requested is no reason you shouldn't be involved.--ghost 19:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Very kind of you, guys. Am in midst of writing stuff that shall be set loose shortly.~ Neuroscientist June 28, 2005 17:07 (UTC)


 * LOL. Don't wait too long...--ghost 28 June 2005 17:12 (UTC)

The unintended humor of Wiki editing
1. Seen today on the latest Schiavo history page ,:


 * (cur) (last) 15:52, June 28, 2005 Duckecho m (→Family relationship... - Terri's name was misspelled in the transcript as is shown here. Replaced the "sic" to keep the cranks from wailing about inaccuracy.)
 * (cur) (last) 16:06, June 28, 2005 Tony Sidaway (rv. That's what the "sic" is there for, to indicate that it was in the original document being quoted.)
 * (cur) (last) 16:38, June 28, 2005 Duckecho m (rv. Congratulations; you took it out. I had put it in originally and someone took it out. I replaced it. Did you even LOOK at my edit?)

2. Seen today on Schiavo talk : Following a 500 word summary, a 1,386 word rebuttal, and a dazzling display of colorized, 5-line long signatures, Gordon Watts finds the need to reply Fuel Wagon's brief rejoinder - with a 1,701 bulleted essay. It's title?


 * "Since FW got a 2nd turn, so do I".

3. Of course, the most important question here is, "Why the hell am I talking to myself on my talk page?" ~ Neuroscientist June 29, 2005 00:15 (UTC)
 * Where else can you have an intelligent conversation?--ghost 30 June 2005 12:44 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks. :) Careful, it might get to my head. BTW, I've finished a couple of "extended commentaries" on The Neurology of the Schiavo case, which may (or may not) help users like NCdave form a more tenable factual basis from which to launch his POV, instead of the arrant nonsense he currently favors. I considered saying something on the Mediation page, but that was a hothouse of activity and it would have been unwise to step in, especially since Ed has finally managed to bring us to a point where some basic consensus over "article mediation" is going to take place. While it's somewhat disheartening that it took so long just to get there, at least some potentially fruitful discussions can now begin. I have a feeling that the best way to go through it may be to only discuss one problem at a time: get everyone's views without straying to other subtopics, and then Ed can make his "decision", or whatever is supposed to happen at one of these things, then move on to the next issue. Of course, this is just a thought, and you guys have way more experience both with Wiki and this group to know how best to do it.


 * Needless to say, I'll be watching the proceedings with interest. Incidentally, may I remark that your 500 was a class act.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 14:47 (UTC)


 * Naw, not at all. These are our oases of sanity. Also amusement. Check my page to see the discussion the above edit summaries spawned. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 13:03 (UTC)
 * Holy cow! That escalated pretty quickly. Or more precisely, one side escalated it pretty quickly. I can see that he simply expected a quick "sure, no problem," and perhaps felt his authority was being undermined when you gave him some, er, advice :). I don't know many Admins, but so far I think Ed's good, and there's one fellow doc in the medical group who's pretty level-headed, but I'm now a bit wary of Mr. Sidaway. I shall put it down to bad day or something, for the moment. PS. Very brilliant comment under "A legal refinement." I can only imagine the sort of a mess the article would be if you, ghost and FW weren't around.~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 14:47 (UTC)


 * I might have given a "sure, no problem," except he tried to lie his way out of it by saying he was trying to insert something. I had added sic; that's it. There was no way he could revert that edit by inserting something. And there's no way he would have reverted it if he had looked at the diff. It was right there in yellow and red. It was clear he had done a drive by revert based on my (admittedly poorly worded) edit summary. I have no patience for that sort of thing. Admins should know better and should edit to a higher standard than the great unwashed. Or at least that's my opinion. In another life I've had experience with incompetents in authority. I call them cop wannabes. I'll tell you about it sometime. Thanks for your nice comments elsewhere. Duckecho (Talk) 30 June 2005 15:28 (UTC)
 * Of course, Duck. I'm in full support, and thought your edit note perfectly adequate if actually read. Which is surprisingly the case with most words, actually. :) ~ Neuroscientist June 30, 2005 15:48 (UTC)

Timestamps in Sigs
I noticed you commented to me here, I replied requesting clarification over @ my Talk page. Thanks. :) User_Talk:Whitehorse1

Sorry
Hello Neuroscientist. It appears I accidentally deleted one of your postings on the Manual of Style talk-page. Sorry! I had not intended too. In fact, I’m not sure how exactly your comment came to be wiped, given I was editing the section on contractions only. A bug perhaps? Nevertheless, I sincerely apologise.-- Cyberjunkie   TALK  6 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Template:Terri Schiavo
Glad to be of assistance, I have tweaked it once more; entirely removing the shorthand some webdesigner put, and manually putting in each margin. This way is clearer for non-programmers and it works more consistently in various browsers; all the margins are working now (well for Firefox, IE is another story) but at least the right margin is kosher for both. - RoyBoy 800 6 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)


 * NS, pardon me for butting in here, particularly as I'm ignorant of all of the particulars, but isn't there a debate going on about ToCRight? Isn't one of the arguments that it's only rarely used, and thus wastes space? Isn't a single use template to accommodate a ToC for one article a similar waste of space? Particularly if you multiply it by the number of them that must be created whenever such ToCs are desired. Wouldn't it just be better to keep the ToCRight template? I must be missing something here, too. I'll butt out if I'm way off the mark. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And it distracted me for two days from working on all things Schiavo & PVS. I may have taken too deep an interest in it, perhaps, but something about the way the motion to delete was tabled just rubbed me the wrong way. The idea that all deviations from the One True Method, even if patently beneficial to the project, must be laid to waste; the idea that there can be no freedom to create, and that all tools to create must be banned, even when no such provisions endure in the commonly observed rules - it's the sort of thing that leaves me somewhat unimpressed. Even over minor things like Wikipedia. I figure if I'm a member I've some kind of duty to do my bit for the common good, once in awhile. So I made myself a perfectly irritable PITA, to use what I believe is your term for these things ;-).


 * Now, coming to your questions, which sound as if you're tentatively testing the waters . If I'm reading you right, Duck, I think you're wondering why we shouldn't just trash the small "related articles" info box and keep the right TOC on Schiavo? Well, I have no strong preference, either way. I believe the template for the box was created by Ghost, and I've taken an interest in it mainly to improve how it's expressed on the page. It's not strictly true that it's used only on one article: it's on all the subarticles to which it links, so one use for it is pretty clear - it links back to the parent and to other subs. One way to get around that would be to simply put related links at the foot of the articles. So this becomes more an aesthetics/functionality debate, I suppose. Regarding a rule about templates used for only one article, I know that there is a commonly held belief that there is one, and that the practice is prohibited. However, my recent TOCright experience has shown me that most people talking about these things don't appear to have bothered checking the rules, such as they are. In my brief readings, I have not come across such a rule, and in fact the books appear to take an encouraging stance about creating functional tools for articles. Certainly you'd never get the impression that it's forbidden when reading the quick guide to templates.


 * So my position wrt the Schiavo box is, I'm ok with it either way. If it's used, however, I'd like it to be done well - which is why I was tinkering with it.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 7, 2005 00:55 (UTC)

This can use your 'Good Offices' as a Philosopher

 * Hi! I just made a post to GordonDotCom (or other SP!) and intrigued by your handle, see on your user page that you are into philosopy. I was asked to look into the following dispute on Democratic Peace Theory, and may weigh in, but the issues may require specialized knowledge I do not have. So Take a look: DifferencePage. Thanks&mdash; for someone else I guess!  Fra  nkB  7 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply. Please reconsider&mdash; There aren't many trained to get involved in this esoteric stuff, including my not so humble self, which I certainly am not! I've taken the better part of week to start evaluation myself, so no one expects any Wikiphile to drop everything! It's certainly your right, though, and I spent many a year in the US Armed Forces prepared to defend THAT, so I say no more. Best regards, either way!  Fra  nkB

Autopsy report
I think you're doing a fine job on that, as should be no surprise, but you're entitled to hear the accolade. Since I expect you'll be in there at least once more, may I ask you to see about discarding the opening sentence, "[w]ithin three hours of her death&hellip;" That strikes me as amateruish&mdash;probably snatched from a soundbite somewhere, and I don't think it adds anything to the article whatsoever. Your call. DofI:NL Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)


 * Lol. The 3 hour thing was in the original version, and I assumed it had been checked. Hmm.


 * The accuracy of the three hours isn't my concern. It's just a cheesy sentence that doesn't belong (in my humble view). Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)


 * No, you're right, it is. I was concentrating so much on the real meat of the section, so didn't really notice that. That's a problem when you don't write your own stuff from scratch, I've noticed. Anyway, it's gone.Neuroscientist | T | C

In the first several days after the autopsy report came out, NCdave kept hanging his hat on the phrase used by the neuropathologist, "relatively preserved". His contention, as evidenced by the cites he gave several times (for some girl in college who had half her brain removed as a child due to seizures and some chap in England who was functioning despite allegedly having only a mm or so of cortex on his brain stem), was that with all that much more mass "relatively preserved", Terri couldn't have been all that bad off. Now my pea brain says his interpretation of "relatively preserved" doesn't necessarily address the funcionality of that portion of the brain, but I'll need to ring up some more of those consultation charges to get your opinion on what was meant by relatively preserved. My lay analogy would be a '65 Corvette, in stand off condition (like a Monet&mdash;looks good from a distance but pretty ugly close up), but minus an engine, tranny, brakes, and interior appointments&mdash;relatively preserved. And I wonder if it's worthwhile addressing that in the report section you're so dilligently tweaking to forestall any other blogodroids who happen by. Duckecho (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)


 * Oh, but I'm fully aware of this, Duck. You may have forgotten, but dear NCdave, on the occasion of my very first posts to Schiavo Talk, once proceeded to tell me how horribly mistaken I was about the autopsy findings. This was amusing in a tragic sort of a way: like a schizophrenic insisting that the psychiatry professor treating him is delusional. At the time, I wrote out quite an extensive reply, but it was too long to post it politely on Talk. It's actually a good subject to visit, because he's not the only one who doesn' really understand it - although he misunderstands it the worst. Your car analogy is pretty good.


 * Imagine Schiavo was a car. Her brain would be the engine. Her brainstem would be the spark plugs, the tiny bit that "ignites" the brain with wakefulness. Her cortex and its connections are the main engine block and the computer systems. What happened to Schiavo was that her whole engine block was destroyed; there were a few remote strips of metal flapping by uselessly, but most of the engine block, pistons, V12 chambers, etc, were totally destroyed. There were some computer connections still intact, but even some of these were damaged, and in any case the stuff that matters was gone.


 * You cannot start this car.


 * No matter how beautiful the leather seats are. No matter how roomy the trunk is. No matter how expensive the 15-layer coat of paint is. No matter what how much she paid the salesman for those Michellins. No matter how sleek the body contour is.


 * It just ain't happening.


 * Conversely, however, if Schiavo car was two years old and was having seizures that seemed to originate in the backseat, she could have come to neuroscientist and gotten a diagnosis, and his team could have removed the seat to help her. We might even remove the front seats, the finishings, the roof of the car, maybe even the doors (the backseat seizures were very bad).


 * And do you know what? When you turn the key in the ignition - that car will start. And it will move. It may not be able to do all the things that intact cars could, but with practice, she'll get better, and one day the roofless look would probably even qualify as a pretty funky convertible.


 * The problem with idiots like NCdave, who insist they know it all, is that they doesn't understand that the car has many different parts that do many different things. If you remove half the mass of the car, but you take it away very carefully, in a controlled surgery, from the right places, when the car was still young and could regrow stuff (funky, this car) the car could still work. But if you remove even 20% of the weight of the car from the wrong place, say by suddenly blowing up the whole engine block - it will never start again.


 * That's what's wrong with the people who invest so much in the brain weight "argument". They're - um, how do you say - freakin clueless.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 9, 2005 00:49 (UTC)

The Schiavo doctors: a response to Gordon Watts
I would like to respond to some comments made on the Terri Schiavo talk page on the subject of the doctors who examined, cared for, and/or testified about Schiavo. I’m doing it here because this discussion, while important in the sense that it informs the writing of the Wiki article, actually does not bear directly on the article itself and is likely to move away from it even further. Pursuant to the Wiki policy of discouraging use of the Talk pages to discuss the rights and wrongs of the subject of an article, I’m writing my comments here with hopes that the Schiavo Talk page is not further abused.

I begin by reproducing the relevant content of the Talk page; my remarks follow. If you would like to respond, please post your comments in the new section, below this. Do not edit this section, please.

Talk page comments on Schiavo doctors (original)
Neuroscientist and others: would this be a fair and more accurate rendition of the relevant sentence in the intro?:


 * This diagnosis was the center of a major dispute between her parents (Robert and Mary Schindler) and her husband (Michael Schiavo, her legal guardian by court appointment), and led to numerous court cases over the course of several years. During the time of her care, more than nine physicians are known to have examined her, including eight neurologists. All of the neurologists save one concurred in a diagnosis of PVS and six of them so testified in court&mdash;the one dissenting diagnosed a minimally conscious state. Ultimately, a Florida circuit court, presided over by Judge George W. Greer, held an evidentiary hearing, at which he heard testimony from five of the neurologists, as well as other evidence, upon which he ruled that Schiavo was in a PVS. This finding was upheld on every appeal, both in state courts and in federal courts.

Duckecho (Talk) 1 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)


 * The way it's worded is POV by omission bias: I'm glad that the factual accuracy is being revisited, and I'm not saying that I think this is inaccurate (not sure here), but when loads of doctors have weighed in, and the only one mentioned are primarily FOR the "PVS" diagnosis, then this is POV. I realize that many doctors didn't personally visit her, but the fact that the courts only let the "Pro-PVS" neurologists visit her (with one apparent exception above), and then we punish the article by excluding mention of the others in this section here is basically not unlike when a bully pushes a person down, and then complains when the person yells. In this analogy, I assert that Greer "pushed" the process down on the ground, by excluding many doctors who could have given input, and then when editors are criticized for trying to mention these other doctors, we must respond that it is not our fault, but the court's fault. We are doing the best with the hand dealt us. Therefore, if you include a lot of ProPVS doctors in the intro, you must include a similar (even if not equal) number of AntiPVS doctors. If you have a problem with this, then I give my "blessings" for you to include mention of which ones actually visited personally with Terri, so this is not leading the witness, or comparing "apples with oranges," ok? (PS: If you include this intro you propose, Duck, you are sure to "make the natives restless," if you know what I mean.)


 * Gordon, this is an excellent example of the two different standards of fact being discussed in Mediation. In fact, I'll point Ed to it.  Now, your logic implys that the neurologists were hand-picked by the court (Greer), and that they went to examine Terri with prejudice.  This is deeply disturbing, because it implys that these doctors are unfit to practice medicine.  Further, this seems to be directly contradicted by Duck's timeline.  His paragraph implys that the neurologists were not picked by the courts, and that we can assume that they examined Terri without any previous assumption of PVS.  Please briefly explain to us which of these is true.


 * Your other assertion is that the opinions of other doctors that didn't directly observe Terri should be valued. I think Sen. Frist's mea culpa is sufficient to explain why they should not.--ghost 2 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)


 * "Now, your logic implys that the neurologists were hand-picked by the court (Greer), and that they went to examine Terri with prejudice." Now, I certainly do not say that the court picked all of the neurologists; I wasn't speaking on that subject, but if I were, I would have said that the court did not let very many doctors examine Terri because had they done so, there would have been a different outcome: Terri would probably have NOT been declared PVS by a majority, so they had to limit access to Terri to a "select few chosen" doctors. My original point was this in my post above: I was trying to say that including a whole bunch of ProPVS doctors in the intro section of the Schiavo article, and only 1 or 2 AntiPVS doctors was POV. The fact that loads of doctors who are trained professionals were so certain of their diagnosis that they gave the Terri's parents affidavits is not only worth mentioning, it is worth mentioning in the same intro section along with the few "special" doctors who were permitted in. "This is deeply disturbing, because it implys [sic; implies] that these doctors are unfit to practice medicine. Further, this seems to be directly contradicted by Duck's timeline." I don't know how the timeline is relevant, unless you want to say that some doctors saw Terri first, before others submitted affidavits, and somehow use this as reason to exclude some doctors from being mentioned in the intro section. However, you seem to think I implied that some doctors are unfit to practice. Well, I won't go that far, but I think some doctors are quacks -or at least unqualified. If that is not so, then how come the 5-doctor-panel mandated by the court all disagreed with one another? Do you think it is merely coincidence that the family's doctors said Terri was NonPVS and that Mike Schiavo's doctors said that Terri WAS PVS? No way! That was not coincidence. The doctors all had biases. Why not include a load of other doctors' analyses and diagnoses, doctors who were not subject to such bias as being paid by one siad or the other to be a "hired gun?" Besides those solicited by Terri's parents (they probably didn't get paid like the first 5), and others who have opined in the news media? I'm sure we could find 20 or 30 doctors who have opined on either side, but I have heard (and I don't know if it is true or not) that MOST doctors who had knowledge of Terri said she was NOT PVS; if they are trained medical professionals, I'm sure they know when they don't have enough information, yet roughly 2-thirds of the doctors who opined one way or another said Terri WASN'T pvs, according to my meager memory. The fact that it was not a landslide one way or another mandates mention of both sides of the dispute to avoid being POV in the presentation of the events.-- GordonWattsDotCom  2 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)

A Response
Gordon, with due respect, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and it shows.

Of the 7 neurologists who examined Schiavo and found her to be in a PVS, only two were employed by Michael as expert witnesses. The other five came to their conclusions when they were consulted on Schiavo’s neurologic health while she was in hospitals and health-care facilities (Desousa, Harrison, Karp, Barnhill) or were retained as a neutral expert (Bambakidis). It is completely bizarre to think that all these neurologists came to their conclusions because they were "biased" in what eventually became the Schiavo debacle, or were paid by Michael. Many of them in fact saw Terri way before this became a controversy of any kind. Desousa was one of the first doctors to see Terri after she suffered the cardiac arrest: he did her first EEGs and her BAER. This was back in 1990, before the Schindlers went nuts in their grief and denial. How could Desousa possibly have been involved in some kind of dark conspiracy? How could he have been "biased" in the Schiavo case, years before there ever was a case? Ditto the other guys. (BTW, this is why "the timeline" is relevant).

The statement that the courts "only let the 'ProPVS' neurologists visit her" is so crass it’s difficult to believe you're serious. You seem to have a considerable grasp of the legal proceedings that took place, so this statement worryingly suggests that you might be lying here. Do you really not know that Greer gave the Schindlers the opportunity of bringing in their experts, and Michael his? Do you really not know the number he stipulated was equal on both sides? And if indeed Greer was Head Honcho, Conspiratorial Affairs, how on earth would he have known that a given neurologist was going to be "ProPVS" before he’d examined the patient and delivered his diagnosis? Greer chose one impartial neurologist when the two sides couldn’t agree on one; did this neurologist – Greer’s sole choice – strike you as some kind of death merchant, jumping to a PVS diagnosis before his sacrificial cauldron got cold? I know what you think of Bambakidis, since you've written about his diagnosis here before, so it’d be interesting to see if you change your tune.

Then we consider the following contradiction: " Now, I certainly do not say that the court picked all of the neurologists..."

You don’t? Well, it sure sounds like you do: " ...the fact that the courts only let the "Pro-PVS" neurologists visit her (with one apparent exception above)... is basically not unlike when a bully pushes a person down, and then complains when the person yells. In this analogy, I assert that Greer "pushed" the process down on the ground, by excluding many doctors who could have given input... "

You’re saying exactly what you deny saying: that Greer’s court maliciously manipulated the roll of neurologists allowed to examine Schiavo, and that Greer, for reasons only decipherable by the nutjobs who make the claim, was so intent on "murdering" Schiavo that he kept out "qualified" doctors who'd immediately have seen that Schiavo was not in a PVS.

This is nonsense, Gordon: there’s no earthly reason Greer would have such intentions, there’s not a single micron of evidence that he did, and even if he did, what he’s supposed to have done to act on those intentions plainly didn’t happen – the way the neurologists were selected is a matter of public record. I cannot understand why Schindlers’ supporters persist in shooting themselves in the foot with such stupid claims that immediately deprive them of credibility.

And the final clunker: " ...I wasn't speaking on that subject, but if I were, I would have said that the court did not let very many doctors examine Terri because had they done so, there would have been a different outcome: Terri would probably have NOT been declared PVS by a majority, so they had to limit access to Terri to a "select few chosen" doctors... but I have heard (and I don't know if it is true or not) that MOST doctors who had knowledge of Terri said she was NOT PVS; if they are trained medical professionals, I'm sure they know when they don't have enough information, yet roughly 2-thirds of the doctors who opined one way or another said Terri WASN'T pvs, according to my meager memory. The fact that it was not a landslide one way or another mandates mention of both sides of the dispute to avoid being POV in the presentation of the events. "

The staggering arrogance that one must have to say this is impressive.

We will leave aside the fact that the 17 or so doctors recruited by Schindler henchmen did not usually deny that Schiavo was in a PVS, they said they would have preferred more testing before they could come to a conclusion (somehow forgetting that since they had no access to the patient, her examination findings, her serial EEGs, her serial CTs, and her neurophysiological assessments, they were not making a sensible argument).

More important, Gordon, is this: you don’t have five minutes-worth of medical training, you’ve never seen Terri, much less examined her in any way that might be described as remotely medical or scientific, you wouldn’t have a clue about how to interpret the findings even if you did, and it's safe to say from your postings that you do not know any neurology – and you're pretty sure that Schiavo wasn't in a PVS? That most doctors would "NOT" have found her to be in a PVS?

Here's a clue: 7 out of 8 doctors – specialist neurologists – who examined her – her, not highly duplicitous, heavily edited footage lasting some 240-odd seconds – concluded she was in PVS.

That is a landslide, Mr. Watts.

Comments on The Schiavo doctors.
A pattern of deception indeed. I'm also reminded of the phrase a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In an email to a compatriot I made a lengthy comparison to a guy I used to work with who suffered the same affliction. It was both sad and entertaining. It's certainly frustrating. Someone once said "you can't argue with that kind of logic" which summarizes it perfectly. In that email I also made reference to what I call the word of the day (hereinafter referred to as WotD). It's as if he learns a new word every once in a while and yearns to work it into a post somewhere (whether apropos or not). I refer you to the Boyle's Law commentary a day or two ago. Res judica was one last week. Duckecho (Talk) 3 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

I'm going to try to reply to some of your answers above, and quote you a bit: "Gordon, with due respect, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and it shows." I don't know all the details, I admit, such as exactly which doctor came from where. "The statement that the courts "only let the 'ProPVS' neurologists visit her" is so crass it’s difficult to believe you're serious. You seem to have a considerable grasp of the legal proceedings that took place, so this statement worryingly suggests that you might be lying here." I'm not going to purposely lie; However, it is a matter of record that Greer limited the proceedings to two "Schindler" doctors, two "Mike Schiavo" doctors, and one more, to be picked by mutual consent -or, if that could not be, then by the court. So, yes, there was limiting done by the court! In what many deem to be the premier case of the century, you might expect a little more then merely five doctors, but, not, Greer - who had to stop the flood gates and play God... **sigh** What was Greer afraid of when many other doctors could have offered viable feedback in the hearing in which only those five opined? I admit that I do not know the details or the circumstances of the roles of the other neurologists, but that was not a reason to limit the trial to five only, especially when it was life-or-death --and a major precedent-setter... Do you really not know that Greer gave the Schindlers the opportunity of bringing in their experts, and Michael his? Yes: Two each. That's it. Do you really not know the number he stipulated was equal on both sides? yes: that super-small number I just mentioned. And if indeed Greer was Head Honcho, Conspiratorial Affairs, how on earth would he have known that a given neurologist was going to be "ProPVS" before he’d examined the patient and delivered his diagnosis? He might not have known, but as the person picking the doctor, he could take a look at his track record and make an educated guess.

Next you say I contradicted myself, but this is not so: In the 1st quote you use, you quote me as admitting the court didn't pick ALL the neurologists. I think this is true, because I think Terri's parents picked one. Next, you quote me as saying the court limited the doctors. Yes: Greer only let in five doctors for the trial, in spite of the fact many raised objection to that. Neither fact contradicts itself, so I don't contradict myself in asserting the facts -they are NOT mutually exclusive. This is nonsense, Gordon: there’s no earthly reason Greer would have such intentions,... I can think of one: He would not want other doctors to examine Terri and find spousal abuse evidence, which would make him look like a bad judge for not having dealt with it earlier. Remember: Greer was (is) one step from impeachment, and were he to have allowed many doctors and one had found strong evidence of wife-beating (I'm not accusing anybody, only showing possible motive), and it come out Terri was beat, people would WANT GREER'S HEAD for having let Mike Schiavo slide for so long!

...the 17 or so doctors recruited by Schindler henchmen did not usually deny that Schiavo was in a PVS, they said they would have preferred more testing before they could come to a conclusion... You might be right about the numbers, however, this begs the question: Even IF most doctors by the Schindlers did not really say Terri was conscious and aware (which seems a stretch, but OK...), instead, if most doctors (as you say above) merely said Terri needed more testing, then why in the world would the judge deny further testing? Is he a doctor? From where did he get  his  medical degree? OK. Point made. George "wanna-be-a-doctor" Greer played doctor -and, in doing so, played God!

More important, Gordon, is this: you don’t have five minutes-worth of medical training,..." I have more than Greer, with my double major with honors in Biological and Chemical Science. ...you wouldn’t have a clue about how to interpret the findings even if you did... False: The Law Itself (case law, but law as you know it) says I do have legal knowledge to so:


 * The court clearly requires that "a statute gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what constitutes forbidden conduct. The language of the statute must provide a definite warning of what conduct is required or prohibited, measured by common understanding and practice." THERESA Sieniarecki v. State, 756 So. 2d 68, 74 (Florida Supreme Court 2000; case number: SC60-94800) Source: http://www.2dca.org/opinion/May%2004,%202005/2D03-4838.pdf (page 8 of this 2nd DCA ruling quotes the Sieniarecki case) You may look up cases at Florida's high court http://www.FLCourts.org at: http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket_search and find this case listed above at this link: http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=1960&p_casenumber=94800&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType=

Statute? Did someone say "statute?" OK: Which statute? Maybe ... uh... this Statute, which says in relevant part:


 * "§825.102(3),Fla.Stats. “(a) “Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult” means:  1.  A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the elderly person or disabled adult..." (Emphasis added for clarity; exact link on Flsenate.gov/statutes is not known as server is slow or down, but quote is correct, thank you)

Seeing as the court says that I, being at least "a person of ordinary intelligence," I can easily deduce from the statutes "what constitutes forbidden conduct," I will "deduce:" The statute in question did NOT give Greer an option regarding medical services or food; It did not say: "If it were Terri's wishes, we can violate this statute." It does not say that denying her food/necessary medical services was OK if she were "terminal," and it would not be legal to deny her even if she were "PVS" (and she might have been). The judge is not allowed to disobey the law, only interpret it; He not only violated felony law, he legislated from the bench, a separation of powers violation. (Note to Duck: This is the "new word" I learned today. "Separation of Powers," or is that several words? I can't count; give me time, lol.)

"...and it's safe to say from your postings that you do not know any neurology – and you're pretty sure that Schiavo wasn't in a PVS? That most doctors would "NOT" have found her to be in a PVS?" Let's take them one at a time: I do know a little bit about neurology; did you see my sheep skins from FSU?; Next, I am pretty sure Terri was PVS. "How," you might ask?


 * Statute tells me: §765.101(12)(a),Fla.Stats.: “'Persistent vegetative state' means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is: The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.” (Emphasis added) Comment: Case law says the statute is easy enough for me to figure out, and since we saw Terri moving around on the videos, she obviously had some cognitive ability. Whatever happened in the other four hours or so is moot. It's just like a prisoner who tried to say "You've got to be mistaken: I didn't steal for over four hours, not did I kill for over four hours." Fine. But, if you stole once, you're a thief; if you killed once, you're a murderer; and, if you had any cognitive ability, per this statute, you're not PVS, because it requires the person to not have any cognitive ability. Is this morally right? Was Terri really "in there," and able to understand us? I don't know the answers to these question. If you don't like the law, change it, but it is the law, and I am qualified (per case law cited above) to understand the clear meaning of the statutes. Now, you ask if I thought that most doctors would "NOT" have found her to be in a PVS? Correct: She did not meet the legal definition, the only one that counted. Greer's opinion did not count, and neither does yours or mine. Greer was responsible with interpreting the plain language of the law, be it felony law 825.102(3) or the definitions in 765 above -not rewriting it; if you all don't like the law, talk to your lawmakers; don't complain to me...

Here's a clue: 7 out of 8 doctors – specialist neurologists – who examined her – her, not highly duplicitous, heavily edited footage lasting some 240-odd seconds – concluded she was in PVS. Oh? That is a landslide, Mr. Watts. No: It is only a "landslide" if you list each doctor, quote him, list the circumstances under which he played a part, cite your source --and, most importantly, do the same for ALL the doctors, not merely the ones you like; So what if some doctors were more credible than others? All the doctors had credentials, and each piece of information is relevant; I'm an inclusionist because I want all the facts; do you?-- GordonWattsDotCom 4 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for moving the lengthy discussion off the talk page, Neuroscientist; you're right: It's Wiki policy that the talk consist over not the issue itself but, instead, the editing of the article --andm this is a good policy; As important as these issues are, it's not right to misappropriate (waste / misspend) resources on talk for a NONedit-related item like this. You read the talk policy correctly. Good job.-- GordonWattsDotCom 4 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)

What's this about you don't think I know what I'm talking about re the perfect gas law: "Graham [sic: Gordon, but that's OK...], you're wrong. You cannot determine the efficacy of a treatment without having controls" I know that! I took classes and studied the need for controls against which to compare experimentals. (You know? Get a baseline?) I never said that Hammesfahr WAS definitely a good doctor; I merely offered a little evidence that he was (somehow) successful. I never said it was ALL his doing, but he IS an MD. Also, in case you don't know, the perfect gas law IS CORRECT. Thus, if Hammesfahr did increase volume, holding all things equal, pressure (yes! blood pressure) would drop. This is not a hard concept. Think about a piston in a car, if you are having trouble. By the way, does "PV=nRT" mean anything to you? Yes, it does sound familiar, doesn't it? Listen: Do you think I just made up all that stuff about having college classes and knowing the gas law and such? I can name most or all of my professors, and you can even look me up on the web: I went to FSU -and graduated with honors, so if you say I'm not educated, I'd respond "My dear Neuroscientist, you're talking horseshit." (If you've really got a degree in that, you know I'm not stupid; Maybe you know a few things I don't, and maybe you're even smarter than me, but that doesn't mean you have common sense. (It doesn't mean you don't either.) Thank you for your feedback, but it is not profitable for me to keep arguing; you can re-read my posts if you want to get my story. Thank you once again for listening. Have a nice day.-- GordonWattsDotCom 4 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Balloon deflating 101
The next sound you hear will be the Greer-slanted-the-proceedings theory fliting about the room with the flatulence of ignorance accompanying its every twist. "However, it is a matter of record that Greer limited the proceedings to two 'Schindler' doctors, two 'Mike Schiavo' doctors, and one more, to be picked by mutual consent..." False to fact. Greer didn't structure the hearing. The structure of the hearing was set by 2nd DCA in Schiavo III and handed to Greer on remand. Don't give a lengthy gasbag response to this indisputable matter of record. A simple "I was wrong" will more than suffice. (sorry to butt in, NS, you can take care of the medical stuff.) Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)


 * "...sorry to butt in, NS, you can take care of the medical stuff." That's OK; I was wrong: The reall mob bosses violating decency here are the 2nd DCA, and that is precicely why I typically told the "petition to impeach Greer" enthusiast that they were WRONG! ...for only going after Greer, because he his "bosses" are appeals judges, or should I say "mob" bosses. (On a side note, I recall the abostract appeal lawyer lamenting the same thing; I don't see why WE must be fired if WE screw up, but a judge is like NEVER fired, no matter WHAT hooey they do... Life isn't fair.-- GordonWattsDotCom 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)


 * I was wrong. That's good enough. It casts all your other claptrap in just the right light of legitimacy, and can be safely ignored. Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)


 * Now, now, there; don't get a big head. Putting things into perspecting: If I was wrong about Greer, then obviously (I was right that) someone else (or a group) did it: The Fla. 2nd DCA did it! It is a member of the infamous Florida District Courts of Appeal, as in "Floriduh...: Where wE CaN't CoUnT the vOtEs," he heh...-- GordonWattsDotCom  5 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)

Dude! How have I deceived you?
I saw the comment you posted at this diff,on Duck's page about a section on Wagon's page, in which you said I was deceptive (that is, lied, I would take it). I may interpret events differently than you, but I do not lie; If I do, then tell me about it, for goodness sake. You have more credibility telling the person themselves, instead of talking behind their back. I would hope that you meant to ask me about it and became too busy. Diplomacy involves respect for obtaining first-hand another person's point of view before talking about them or forming an opinion.-- GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)


 * Gordon, I never said you lied to me - I wasn't even around when the incidents Duck was referring to took place (nearly two months ago). This is what I wrote on his page, when we were talking about the above matters relating to the Schiavo doctors:


 * ...Incidentally, your Talk page has been quite informative about Mr. Watts. I had no idea. A pattern of deception - I feel rather less bad about being a bit sharp with him.~ Neuroscientist July 3, 2005 17:30 (UTC)


 * Please do not pretend you do not understand what is being referred to: I specifically linked Duck's original post. It concerns your prior efforts at drawing attention to a minor legal role you played in the Schiavo matter, in which it would not be unfair to say you were not entirely forthcoming. If nothing else, this extraordinary episode in your recent history attests to a healthy amore propre. Now, I have no interest whatsoever in visiting this controversy once more, two months later - I can think of all sorts of painful chores I'd much rather do. If you feel Duck's denouement of your legal escapades was unfair or inaccurate, the person (and place) to take it to is him (and his Talk page). You've actually had two months to do so.


 * Also note that I was not at all speaking "behind your back" - I've always contacted you directly when I wrote criticisms of your views on my page. On Duck's page I made passing reference to an impressive bit of detective work on his part - and I did so in the full understanding that it was open for you to see.


 * Finally, note that I hope this is the absolute last time this matter is addressed on my Talk page. If our discussions are to remain cordial, I hope you'll respect my requests in re my Talk page. I will respond to your multitude of sins re the Schiavo doctors soon enough, but as far as I'm concerned your legal battles are quite uninteresting, and I'll not have this page cluttered with more nonsense than is strictly necessary. (There's already one overly verbose editor trawling this page :) ) If you post anything on this matter here, it gets deleted on sight.~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 03:33 (UTC)


 * I got your message from the diffs, and I am sorry that I misunderstood you. (I believe you when you say you posted openly and not to hide or speak behind my back; likewise, when I made comments, amore propre, about myself and advocating or defending my efforts, I hope you don't think I was trying to hide the facts or trick you or talk behind the court's back and pretend I did something I didn't do.


 * It is OK with me if you delete my comment immediately -because a comment is less important than a person. You are right on target with your comment that your talk page is becoming cluttered (all pages seem to be cluttered too much, lol), and, in fact I may not participate much in Wiki in the future, and if that is so, I hope I have not offended you. Take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)


 * Gordon, do not be concerned about what I think about the issue, please. It had little to do with me. I am also rather difficult to offend. I consider this matter now closed. Regards,~ Neuroscientist | T | C July 6, 2005 06:45 (UTC)

Food for thought
As I was preparing a Talk Page post I got to thinking about the CAT scan graphic in the Diagnosis Dispute section of the article (about which I was posting) and I was reminded of a phrase from Greer's order in the 2000 Terri's wishes trial. He said "The court also received into evidence certain exhibits, including CAT scans of Terri Schiavo and, for comparison purposes, Dr. James Barnhill." It struck me as awkward construction at the time (Greer's not the most gifted writer&mdash;gambit for gamut, statue for statute), and I interpreted it to mean Barnhill testified (which he did). Now that I think about that graphic on the page, I'm wondering if that's the scan from the trial and is, in fact, Barnhill on the left, even though it says "&hellip;a normal 25 year old's brain." Am I spending too much time on this? I am busy remodeling the house&hellip;maybe I should try and get more done. Duckecho (Talk) 9 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)