Jahi’s family wants her declared 'alive again’

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
IIRC, people who have Altshimers have brains thaT calcify.

People who are BRAIN DEAD HAVE BRAINS THAT EVENTUALLY LIQUEFY FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
please excuse caps.

People with Alzheimer's have atrophic brains, which means shrunken. Calcifications in brains are only from rare calcium diseases, or possibly from parasitic cysts. I don't think Jahi's brain would harden or calcify. Her scan would should bright white like her skull. Hers shows a very disintegrated brain that is absolutely not capable of working


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
If you would read the article you linked, you will see it clearly states the hospital required a court order before it could act.

On Feb. 16, Harris County Probate Court Judge William C. McCulloch made the landmark decision to lift restrictions preventing Texas Children's from discontinuing care. However, an emergency appeal by Hudson's attorney, Mario Caballero, and a procedural error on McCulloch's part prevented the hospital from acting for four more weeks.

Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

Texas Children's said it contacted 40 facilities with newborn intensive care units, but none would accept Sun. Without legal delays, Sun's care would have ended Nov. 28.

Bush passed some law when he was Governor of Texas saying that doctors can take people off life support even if family disagrees.
 
BBM. With all due respect, the only confirmation bias seems to be a reflection of your own. Where do you even get that any of the physicians lack the necessary credentials or need more experience in interpreting diagnostic tests? Dr. Shewmon is retired. Do you really think a Judge is not going to view him as an expert witness once the jurisdictional issues are resolved?

To suggest that Dr. Shewmon is somehow biased or that he or anybody else has even suggested they can "cure" brain death has no basis in facts I've seen. The point he made in the affidavit wasn't that Jahi is "cured" it is that she was never brain dead to begin with but the testing failed to detect it. I've also seen nothing that indicates the IBRF is an "iffy" organization. The Advisory Board is comprised of professionals around the world including Italy, Spain, Poland and Canada. I just don't see how it is iffy in any facet.

http://www.ibrfinc.org/advisory_board.htm

JMO


Well, first of all, not all of the people who examined Jahi are physicians. Defina is a psychologist who got his degree from an online university. The person who administered the EEG is not a physician either and does not appear to be an expert in brain death.

Dr. Shewmon is no doubt very respectable professional but he wrote a statement on the basis of second hand information that came to him through sources he did not have a chance to verify. JMO but if I was an impartial observer I'd like to see the patient for myself if I've been asked to go against a court-approved diagnosis of a Stanford neurologist and others.

The iffiness of IBRF was extensively discussed in the previous threads. Everything on their website was allegedly "advanced and cutting edge" and they implied their nutritional supplement regime could cure this and that but they had little to show in the way of research to prove their claims. Lots of hype and usually not accepted by the insurance so it seemed some desperate families pay them big bucks getting nothing in result. Some of the founders seemed to have something a little off in regards the relationship with the previous employers. In any case it was extremely irresponsible and self serving of the iBRF people to go out in the media to say Jahi had hope being cured before they'd ever seen her.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/meadowlands_hospital_neuroscie.html
 
Donjeta: The statements were ones I had heard before, behind the scenes, about they are trying to get this patient transferred, the docs were or weren't going to do a teach, tube feeding, etc. But they were saying publicly, through a spokesperson of hospital attorney. And it was phrased in a very negative light toward Maui/her family. Just hearing the official talk to the MAN in this manner about any patient or family shocked me. It was not name-calling, though.


I'm pretty sure the hospital would not have had a spokesman say anything about Jahi's treatment if the family hadn't sought publicity for the court case and made some very damning allegations about the hospital.
 
For anyone who has ever been forced to consent to cease life support this whole case must be painful and must be triggering a lot of people into unplanned guilt trips. I hope that there is resolution soon through the courts.

My beautiful, incredible dad died a hideous, long death after being diagnosed with stage four cancer. I stayed by his bed, held his hand and quickly learned what every breath or slight movement of his body or face meant and when he was in pain and how much. I finally told the doctor that he needed to authorize as much morphine as necessary to stop the torment, even though such a dose would likely kill him. After that, I watched him slip quietly into death.

The Mcmath family and their decisions do not contribute to any grief I may suffer as a result of letting my father go. They are not reaponsible for triggering pain in others. People have a choice as to what to read or watch.

Neither do I think they are prolonging anyone's suffering, abusing their surviving children, purposefully Misleading the Public, taking away Jahi's dignity, or grifting the confused.

I think they get blamed for everything because people need to be right. But in my mind they are simply very sad, tragic people panicked by their loss and unable to survive having to accept it.
 
Well, first of all, not all of the people who examined Jahi are physicians. Defina is a psychologist who got his degree from an online university. The person who administered the EEG is not a physician either and does not appear to be an expert in brain death.

Dr. Shewmon is no doubt very respectable professional but he wrote a statement on the basis of second hand information that came to him through sources he did not have a chance to verify. JMO but if I was an impartial observer I'd like to see the patient for myself if I've been asked to go against a court-approved diagnosis of a Stanford neurologist and others.

The iffiness of IBRF was extensively discussed in the previous threads. Everything on their website was allegedly "advanced and cutting edge" and they implied their nutritional supplement regime could cure this and that but they had little to show in the way of research to prove their claims. Lots of hype and usually not accepted by the insurance so it seemed some desperate families pay them big bucks getting nothing in result. Some of the founders seemed to have something a little off in regards the relationship with the previous employers. In any case it was extremely irresponsible and self serving of the iBRF people to go out in the media to say Jahi had hope being cured before they'd ever seen her.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/meadowlands_hospital_neuroscie.html

BBM. I truly have no idea why you have concluded Dr. Shewmon obtained his information second hand because his affidavit clearly states the tests were performed by Rutgers University. I'm pretty sure they are a "verified source."

We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

JMO
 
BBM. I truly have no idea why you have concluded Dr. Shewmon obtained his information second hand because his affidavit clearly states the tests were performed by Rutgers University. I'm pretty sure they are a "verified source."

We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

JMO

Surely you know what second hand means?
It means he didn't examine the patient himself.

Not everything is automatically infallible and correctly interpreted if it comes out of Rutgers University.
Rutgers University is a collection of individuals of various levels of expertise and experience who may sometimes have a bias or be hired to present a certain viewpoint.

JMO but if I had to sign my name under a statement that says that a patient who was declared brain dead by several physicians months ago is no longer brain dead I'd like to test her for myself and not take the risk that I'm being misled. But I'm a cynical individual.

Plus, it is huge news if it's true... My curiosity probably couldn't keep me away...
 
Surely you know what second hand means?
It means he didn't examine the patient himself.

Not everything is automatically infallible and correctly interpreted if it comes out of Rutgers University.
Rutgers University is a collection of individuals of various levels of expertise and experience who may sometimes have a bias or be hired to present a certain viewpoint.

JMO but if I had to sign my name under a statement that says that a patient who was declared brain dead by several physicians months ago is no longer brain dead I'd like to test her for myself and not take the risk that I'm being misled. But I'm a cynical individual.

Plus, it is huge news if it's true... My curiosity probably couldn't keep me away...

I'm not sure why you think a physician must personally "examine" a patient before forming an opinion on the medical tests performed at an accredited hospital. In my experience, CAT scans, X-rays, EKG, EEG, lab work etc. have been performed by trained technicians and then physicians interpret the results.

It is your opinion that Rutgers University is biased or in some way willing to manipulate results and I don't share your opinion. As I stated in my previous post, we will have to agree to disagree and move on.

JMO
 
I'm not sure why you think a physician must personally "examine" a patient before forming an opinion on the medical tests performed at an accredited hospital. In my experience, CAT scans, X-rays, EKG, EEG, lab work etc. have been performed by trained technicians and then physicians interpret the results.

It is your opinion that Rutgers University is biased or in some way willing to manipulate results and I don't share your opinion. As I stated in my previous post, we will have to agree to disagree and move on.

JMO


There are ways that tests such as EEG etc. can go wrong but I am actually most concerned with the interpretation of a few short snippets of out-of context videos as definitive evidence of purposeful movement.

Rutgers University is not a person who has opinions and examines people, so Rutgers university can't have a bias or manipulate results. People who are somehow affiliated with Rutgers University, however, are not necessarily any more immune to potential bias than any other people, and they don't have to be fundamentally any more honest than the population in general.
 
Originally Posted by Hiandmighty

Why does it have "Not For Medical Usage" at bottom ??

At Oct 3 presser, reporter asked same question.
Response (my paraphrasing): The facility where the image was made simply examined (performed the scan on) Jahi and did not treat her,
so in that circumstance, the phrase "Not For Medical Usage" is added to images released.
 
:moo:

MOO

This is about money because, from what I can gather:

1) the parents are homesick and want to go back to Cali

2) they want to take Jahi's dead body with them

3) they can't currently take her dead body with them because no one will accept a dead body and no one will pay to keep a dead body supported

4) I speculate the one facility in the US who took her is running out of donor money to keep the body supported. I guess it costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars a month to keep her body kept up.

5) they have to get her declared alive for mediCal to pay for her upkeep.

6) the lawyer probably wants his bill paid too. Someone else "needs" to pay.

It's a sick sick mess.
 
BBM. I truly have no idea why you have concluded Dr. Shewmon obtained his information second hand because his affidavit clearly states the tests were performed by Rutgers University. I'm pretty sure they are a "verified source."

We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.

JMO
No, agreeing to disagree on this particular subject would be a Pyrrhic victory. I'm sorry you disagree here, but you are simply wrong, no offense intended here. The timeline of all of Dolan's tests culminating together with his "experts" defies logic. And all these experts have all been discredited as either license-revoked sexual deviants with their patients, earned their degree from a diploma mill and not an actual college, or lastly - my favorite - had an extract published in Neurology about how he and his wonder team concocted some Frankenstein-ish procedure of shocking the remaining sludge of brain matter, infusing the corpse with artificial hormones, and blasting it with necessary brain vitamins, and in doing so were able to get a BD (that's brain dead) body to exhibit signs of higher (and lower) brain function. In essence, claiming that they had cured brain death in a patient and that patient had progressed to the "less-dead" state of MVS. They've hailed this agenda for many years, taking the playbook from people the likes of Bobby "The Swindler" Schindler of the Terri Schiavo Network, adopting the craziest of positions and holding their hands out for money from people just as crazy as the idea itself.

The reality is, all they truly accomplished was nothing more than an elaborate hoax of pouring salt on skinned frog legs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_K6VqEQuaA

I won't waste my time linking all my sources for my attacks on Revoked-Dr. Fellus, DeFina (NOT a doctor), or Machada (how do we really know he's a doctor? We have no way to verify it). Everything I summarized about them above is already provided in this entire thread, as I got all this information by doing my own research from this thread, AND the investigatory efforts of countless other people dedicated to this cause. Credit: MANY.

But about Dr. Shewmon. I'll quote someone else and say (because it's highly appropriate), "He's been showing his cards for years." That is, it's no secret he's been somewhat showing that his position within his own moral compass is that brain death is not real, it's an organ-harvesting scam, etc. But, I also paid close attention to the wording and timing of his statements in this case.

"I'm currently reviewing the evidence provided to me..." This can mean absolutely anything he wants it to mean, and that's exactly what Dolan typed up FOR HIM to sign and/or say. It's legalese that basically says, "I have absolutely NO evidence sitting in front of me to support my position, but...just so you know...BUMBLEBEE TUNA!....errrr, I mean, cough, Dolan gave me lots of stuff to look at *snicker* (read: nothing), and my opinion is the possibility exists that someone was wrong in their initial diagnosis."

"It was signed/issued on the 3rd...juuuuust in time for the press conference." Why wait until after the initial court hearing? Why wait at all until there's absolutely no time to challenge his statement prior to handing it to the media? Because it's a shell game, sleight of hand, etc. "Stuff" we have absolutely no idea what he was actually physically looking at, besides the same carefully orchestrated cell-phone videos from May 20th, 2014 (which the mom lied about when they were taken). For all we know, they showed him pictures of a bloody adult diaper, told him it was Jahi's menses, and absent any physical evidence to suggest otherwise, he "believed" them.

But the words, "evidence" and "believe" are really very funny words. Even in our criminal courts, it's up to a jury to decide what "evidence" they want to "believe", regardless of it's actual credibility, certainty, or accuracy. The only difference to make is did one side present any case to discredit the evidence, or was the presenting side allowed the sole privilege of endorsing and testifying about said "evidence"? In this case, Dr. Shewmon apparently signed a last-second statement, prepared for him BY Dolan's team, based on "evidence" presented to him and only by Dolan with no rebuttal, and under such "duress" really didn't have any choice but to say that he "believes" it --- until he has had time to actually review everything and sees the circus for what it is. BUT we won't be seeing Dolan with a statement from Dr. Shewmon stating he no longer believes a thing he was told by Dolan. No. That would be counter-productive to Dolan's case, and detrimental even. I imagine we'll never hear from or about Dr. Shewmon again in this case, as he's now bound to SHFM by whatever fine print he failed to read when he signed that first hastily-prepared statement.

And finally, it's important to carefully note that a living person is extremely hard-pressed to find ANY doctor who will issue a diagnosis without ever spending a second with a patient, personally observing certified tests, and/or carefully reviewing entire medical histories as documented by real, licensed, prior-attending physicians. Dr. Shewmon, in this case, did none of the above - but it's also equally important to remember that he didn't give any diagnosis, he just basically said, "If what I'm being told is true, then, the diagnosis of BD might need to be reexamined." Carefully. Selected. Wording. Any doctor who does the former in this paragraph is one of two (or perhaps both) things: a quack or a crook. Shewmon at least still has his license (for now), some respect from colleagues (for now), and actually makes money at being a doctor (debatable). He's not entirely stupid, but he did get duped by an attorney who knew Shewmon was at least dangling from the caboose of the "ForcedExit" train.

MyBelle, I bid you adieu as I now go back to lurking. You should be proud to know that I created an account with the specific intent of being able to reply to you. I simply could not sit by any longer and see lies and mistruths spread about this subject where we are dedicated to uncovering the truth. I recommend you start from page 1, and have a do-over.

V/R,

"The Justice League"
 
I can only hope Jahi's case in some way put a dent in the "Terri Schiavo Foundation" coffers. Please please please let the Schindlers run out of money!!!!
 
Professor Thaddeus Pope (Hamline University Health Law Institute) has identified the legal technique under which Attorney Dolan is trying to “re-open” the court proceedings under which Jahi McMath was declared dead last year. He has identified this as a “writ of error coram nobis”.

http://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/

I’d love to hear some legal folks opine more about this error coram nobis. Here are some interesting links about this legal technique. Suffice to say, it does not at all seem clear cut that error coram nobis is the correct path for attempting to overturn a finding of brain death in civil court. Mostly, this obscure technique appears to be used in criminal cases, after the trial is over and the verdict rendered. According to wiki references, cases before Federal Civil courts can’t claim error coram nobis—only criminal cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coram_nobis

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Error+coram+nobis

Some atorneys feel that error corum nobis is a “hail mary pass.”

http://blogs.findlaw.com/first_circ...ror-coram-nobis-the-legal-hail-mary-pass.html

A writ of error coram nobis is the last resort used to reopen a case for fundamental errors of fact or law.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has a three-part test to determine if a petitioner can obtain relief by filing a writ of error.

First, the petitioner must explain his failure to seek earlier relief from judgment.

The petitioner then must show that he continues to suffer significant collateral consequences from the judgment.

Finally, the petitioner must demonstrate that the judgment resulted from an error of the most fundamental character.

But even passing the three-part test doesn’t clear a petitioner’s path to relief under the writ. The court has discretion over the decision to grant or deny the writ. Think of it as a veto authority.

This is a long (79 page) article specifically about error coram nobis in California courts.

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/c...F61D0D18484D8560C6#search="error coram nobis"

I am not a lawyer, but if I understand this information correctly, it explains why Judge Grillo commented that his court may not be the appropriate place to challenge the brain death determination, and why Atty Dolan seemingly “stomped his foot” in his memorandum and insisted that Judge Grillo DOES have jurisdiction. (It doesn’t seem at all clear that Judge Grillo has jurisdiction over this complaint, IMO.) It also explains the VERY careful wording by some of the experts where they state that Jahi WAS correctly diagnosed as brain dead under statute using UDDA and other criteria for establishing the diagnosis multiple times 9 months ago.

My interpretation of this hail mary pass, is that it’s kind of arrogant, crystal ball, circular logic—if the court had somehow known that all of the current laws, processes, and techniques of diagnosing brain death were “wrong”, the courts would have “known” that Jahi had the possibility of being wrongly diagnosed, and “could have” demonstrated evidence at some point in the future that she was NOT brain dead. So, she really isn’t brain dead and never was. But we sort of know you couldn’t have known that, Judge, so we know you really didn’t make a mistake, except that you did, and clearly you were wrong. And you can admit you were wrong, Judge, and fix this whole situation right now. We even have a few seconds of cell phone video from 6 months ago for you to review, and an MRI that shows half her brain gone—but please pay no attention to what isn’t in the MRI picture, and ignore all science and the fact that a lemon or potato, or salted frog legs, can generate electricity. So, Judge, revoke the death determination from 9 months ago, please and thank you. Jahi is clearly alive. Let me show you that cell phone video again to prove it.

I might need some late afternoon coffee to continue to wrap my brain around that. Under different circumstances, that logic might be pretty humorous. Because if that is what Dolan et al is REALLY saying, then they are saying NO ONE should EVER be diagnosed brain dead, because at some point in the future we might have a way to prove that they are “alive again”. This would be consistent with the philosophy of many of the extreme outlier individuals who have offered to assist this family since last December. Their overarching goal, IMO, is to abolish brain death in practice and in statutes, as well as permanently cripple the process of beating heart organ donation. Well, some of them, any way—others clearly want to peddle snake oil and part vulnerable families from their money, raping their hope. IMO, of course.

The family of Jahi McMath has launched an online movement to “bring Jahi home”. Continuing their false outrage that someone is standing in their way of returning to California, or bringing Jahi back to California. I really hope that Judge Grillo makes some kind of official statement on the record Thursday that addresses this issue—that Nailah Winkfield and her family have always been free to live in California, or wherever they choose. And that Nailah Winkfield was given extreme consideration by the court to take her daughter whereever she chose, at the conclusion of the court proceedings last year. No one chased this family out of California, and no one is preventing their return. Jahi is deceased under the law, properly vetted numerous times within medicine and the courts, the same as every other brain dead individual. This family has not been discriminated against with that diagnosis, and indeed has been given more latitude and consideration than many other families in similar circumstances.

I hope the courts state again that Nailah Winkfield and her family are free to care for Jahi at home, or find some other private or charitable facility or agencies to help them. But the state of California, nor the federal government should be compelled to provide money to care for her body in perpetuity (or any other brain dead person). That really teeters on the edge of insanity, IMO. Slippery slope and all that.
 
Welcome to Websleuths, and posting, TJL!

I hope you choose to emerge from lurkdom and post more! Great first post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
1,813
Total visitors
1,991

Forum statistics

Threads
600,354
Messages
18,107,360
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top