What do you believe the judge based his opinion on?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Diagnosis from BCH, what else?
What do you believe the judge based his opinion on?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In Justina's case, she was supposed to go to BCH to see Dr. Flores at suggestion of Dr. Korson. Dr. Flores was her GI specialist.
But for whatever reason that didn't happen and some neurology doctor saw her instead. What is so unbelievable about that?
Her adult sister has mitochondrial disease and is being treated for it at Tuft's by Dr. Korson. Her sister actually had the muscle biopsy done.
There is no proof Dr. Korson suggested Justina see a doctor at another hospital or that Dr. Flores was currently Justina's GI specialist.
The only thing I find unbelievable are the "facts" invented by the parents.
JMO
Diagnosis from BCH, what else?
Well it's been published in numerous msm sources and that's all I can say on this matter. You can believe it or not. It makes no difference to me.
Well it's been published in numerous msm sources and that's all I can say on this matter. You can believe it or not. It makes no difference to me.
Big Foot sightings have also been reported in the MSM.
It's the source & content that's important...not the media outlet reporting it. IMO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's amazing how quickly the media will change its tone after actual facts come to light. Apparently Tufts was concerned about a number of "issues" that needed to be resolved in the form of a legal agreement with the parents. I think the first item on the list was to stop publicly claiming a Tufts doctor told them to get a referral at BCH.
Department of Children and Families officials said Pelletier’s visits at Tufts will take place soon, now that the parents “reached an agreement” with Tufts over a number of issues.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyl...ssachusetts/puyPhesGkKE6rGLid2VM2L/story.html
Dr. Flores is with BCH.
Which media changed its tone? That article is not exactly most recent, and you have no clue what kind of issues or agreement the parents were discussing.
Considering DCF has custody, it also makes no sense to me why parents were the ones reaching any sort of agreement with Tufts.
He used to be in Tufts but moved to BCH. He isn't the one who diagnosed her with somatoform, so what difference does it make that he is with BCH?
There is no proof Dr. Korson suggested Justina see a doctor at another hospital or that Dr. Flores was currently Justina's GI specialist.
The only thing I find unbelievable are the "facts" invented by the parents.
JMO
What we know is that DCF has custody. DCF has allowed Justina to be seen by Dr. Korson at Tufts. Parents do not appear to be in position to make any legal agreements as they do not have custody. From what Justina's father said, Dr. Korson is not allowed to inform the family on the results of his examination of Justina. Again, because parents don't have custody.
The article quotes DCF as stating Tufts had issues with the parents that needed to be resolved prior to seeing Justina again. If the parents don't wish to reach an agreement, Tufts is not under any obligation to see or treat Justina. Dr. Korson has to abide by federal health privacy laws. The media knows that and so does the father.
There is no proof he didn't suggest it.
You don't have to believe the parents. By the same token I don't have to believe all of the statements from DCF.
What public opinion? Do you consider your own opinion the same shared by all public? I am just curious as to where you are getting these ideas on public opinion, so please provide links to these claims.
Try this?:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lletier-kidnapped-doctors-use-guinea-pig.html
http://whenisapartynotaparty.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/daily-mail-8-justina-pelletier.jpg
This might be an easier to read copy of the "Guidelines".
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.