“Sharpiegate”: Trump Ridiculed For Altered Hurricane Forecast

Fox News joined other networks yesterday in ridiculing a truly bizarre moment from the Oval Office where Trump appeared to show a forecast map of Hurricane Dorian with a hastily drawn extension into Alabama. Trump previously claimed that Alabama was in the hurricane’s projected path and was widely contradicted (including by federal officials). He then showed up with the map that seemed to have an extension written by a Sharpie. It was another bizarre misstep that expanded a minor story into a major embarrassment. Trump had to personally deny that he took a Sharpie to the altered map in what people are humorously calling “Sharpiegate.

The apparent Sharpie job was no clumsy and amateurish that one had to wonder if someone on the staff was being passive aggressive and intentionally trying to make Trump look ridiculous. Anyone looking at that altered map would have said that it looked absurdly altered. That obviously did not include Trump himself.

Trump’s initial misstatement over Alabama was not particularly serious. Once could see how the mistake could have been made. Trump could have just let it drop or even, perish the thought, admitted that he was wrong. Parts of Alabama was likely to get heavy rain but was not really in the path. Trump however doubled down.

Trump had already objected to the critics over his Alabama claim and returned to the subject by raising the National Weather Service’s early forecasts of Hurricane Dorian’s path. In what was clearly an effort to quiet the criticism, Trump declared “We got lucky in Florida, very, very lucky indeed. We had actually our original chart was that it was going to be hitting Florida directly… And that would have affected a lot of other states.”

Fox correctly reported that this was not the map issued by the government. In discussing the scene with Bret Baier, John Roberts noted that there was never a forecast track into Alabama and “You can see somebody with a Sharpie or some other writing instruments added a little bit to the cone of uncertainty, which was not a part of the official forecast, which included the Florida panhandle and parts of Alabama.”

This is yet another example of how this White House and this President is ignoring a fundamental rule of life and politics: when you are in a hole, stop digging.

704 thoughts on ““Sharpiegate”: Trump Ridiculed For Altered Hurricane Forecast”

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-six citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-four weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, give us one of your pearls of wisdom from the BNC Discussion Forum.

              1. No, David. Fido, AKA the Brainless Wonder would become lonely again and would start yapping and grabbing at your trousers. Do you really want the bottom of your trousers shredded and left with rabid mucous?

  1. There was no 4 hour delay. There was no 3 hour, 40 minute delay rounded up to 4 hours.
    This has been covered, in some detail, several times.
    Only in AllanWorld was there a 4 hour delay.

    1. Dr Boland who you quoted thought there was a 3 hour and forty minute delay rounded to **almost** 4 hours or can’t you read?

      1. That is not what Dr. Boland daid. She said that “only 3 hours, 40 minutes elapsed” from the time a call for the ambulance was made to the time she arrived in Montreal.
        She also mentioned the imaging and stabilization at the closer hospitals, which you have repeatedly criticized as unnecessary “delays”.

        1. Correction:

          Dr. Boylan– not Boland

          And to Anon @ 5:23:

          Yep. 3 hours and 40 minutes. But Dr. Boylan is a medical professional and Allan clearly isn’t.

        2. That 3 hours and 40 minutes elapsed is the same as delayed. You are really digging in the dirt to find something to say. But you are not alone. You have your trusted dog Fido (AKA the Brainless Wonder) yapping at your feet so you must feel that you are protected by her mindless comments that haven’t added one bit of knowledge to any of the problems under discussion.

          1. “That 3 hours and 40 minutes elapsed is the same as delayed.”

            This is true in AllanWorld, but not anywhere else.

            Dr. Boylan was correct in using the word “elapsed.”

            That Allan doesn’t understand the difference between “elapsed” and “delayed”, in the context of travel time, isn’t a surprise.

            We’ll let him think on it, for all the good it will do.

            She was also correct in her precision about the amount of time that “elapsed.” She’s a neurologist and understands that when describing a medical emergency, one doesn’t round 3 hours and 40 minutes up to 4 hours.

            In AllanWorld, however, he wants the transfer time — the amount of time that elapsed — to be as long as possible, even though it’s inaccurate.

            Keep thinking on those definitions, Allan.

            1. It’s difficult to ascertain with total accuracy whether this is Fido, AKA the Brainless Wonder or Dr. Death speaking. IF it is Fido she has elevated her wrting so there is barely notable intelligence or if it is Dr. Death, his ability to write is degenerating to that of Fido’s total lack of ability.

              Since the exact times were given multiple times almost 4 hours was very appropriate.

              My guess is the above post was Fido’s and she paraphrased some of what Dr. Death said before.

      2. We can read, Allan, but you obviously can’t.

        Dr. Boylan mentioned “3 hours and 40 minutes.” She said nothing about 4 hours… — or almost 4 hours.

        She said “3 hours and 40 minutes.”

        1. “Dr. Boylan mentioned “3 hours and 40 minutes.” She said nothing about 4 hours… — or almost 4 hours.”

          Whether it be Dr Death or Fido the Brainless Wonder you guys really have nothing to say.

  2. Are we safer than Natasha Richardson?

    By Laura S. Boylan, M.D.
    Commondreams.org
    Monday, April 6, 2009

    http://pnhp.org/news/are-we-safer-than-natasha-richardson/

    In an example of the circus of fear and hyperbole surrounding the health care debate, opponents of government involvement in health care are exploiting Natasha Richardson’s tragic death from a skiing accident.

    The New York Post reports “Canadacare May Have Killed Natasha.” The blogosphere has headlines like “Canada’s Killer Healthcare.”

    Here are the bare facts: Natasha Richardson died from an epidural hematoma, a condition that requires urgent evaluation and surgical treatment. When treated early enough, this injury is rarely fatal. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask how different health care systems handle this sort of emergency.

    Ms. Richardson’s initial refusal of an ambulance cost about two hours. With 20/20 hindsight we know this was a bad decision. However, it’s also true that “feeling OK” after a minor head injury is, in fact, a powerful predictor of a good outcome. But bad things do happen. Patients with an epidural hematoma may initially feel and look well, this is referred to as a “lucid interval.”

    After the ambulance was summoned for a second time, only 3 hours and 40 minutes elapsed before Ms. Richardson arrived at a neurotrauma center in Montreal. On the way she was evaluated and stabilized at a community hospital with modern imaging facilities. Apparently, however, it was still too late.

    Many have asserted that Ms. Richardson would have fared better in the United States. This is far from certain. With epidural hematomas, it’s all in the timing. The intervention required is one of the simplest in neurosurgery.

    Helicopter airlift, or the lack thereof, has been a focus of criticism of Ms. Richardson’s care. An immediately available helicopter might have helped Ms. Richardson if used to transfer her directly from the resort to Montreal. It’s hard to know. However, it does not follow that the profusion of medical helicopter services in the United States makes Americans safer.

    As reported by the Institute of Medicine, neurosurgeons are often unavailable to provide emergency and trauma care in the U.S. Detailed data on patients referred to specialty hospitals for emergency neurosurgical evaluations is available for Cook County, Illinois. This county, which includes Chicago, is densely populated. Total time elapsed from arrival to a community hospital to arrival at the specialty hospital averaged 11 hours. The comparable time period for Ms. Richardson, who had an accident in rural Quebec, was less than 3 hours. In Cook County most patients would still be awaiting an imaging study at the first hospital.

    The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2002 that a man with a vertebral fracture after a fall waited 8 hours in an Austin emergency room before being airlifted to Temple because no local neurosurgeon was available. In Temple, he waited two days for surgery and was eventually billed over $4,000 for the helicopter. In the end, it turned out that there had, in fact, been a neurosurgeon available in Austin; however, he worked at a hospital in a competing network. This is just one case, but it does illustrate how business incentives distort quality in our health care system.

    U.S. helicopter medical evacuation services are extensive, but tend to address market rather than public health imperatives. Helicopters are concentrated in urban rather than rural areas. Alarming fatality rates due to accidents during medical helicopter evacuations have led to headlines such as in “Critics Say Emergency Medical Helicopters Are Overused and Offer Few Benefits to Patients” (Wall Street Journal 2005).

    It’s different in Canada. In Quebec, while there is no helicopter service there is a fixed wing air ambulance service. Fixed-wing craft require a landing strip but are much faster. In addition to being used for long distance emergencies in this vast province, several times a week Quebeckers from remote regions are flown to the city to obtain non-emergency medical care not available locally. All of this is free to patients, who are covered by Canadian medicare. Other provinces do have helicopter evacuation services, and these have a better safety record than their U.S. counterparts.

    A really good emergency medical system addresses the continuum of care from prevention to pre-hospital care to rehabilitation. Nova Scotia, a not-wealthy largely rural Canadian province, has created a model program of integrated services, which others have aimed to reproduce.

    Dr. Ronald Stewart, who championed the program first as a legislator and then as minister of health, engineered the replacement of fragmented private services with a unified public system in the 1990s. Innovation has thrived with a profusion of influential research papers on, for example, medically appropriate helicopter triage, head injury treatment guidelines, and detailed reports of clinical characteristics and outcomes of all surgical interventions on injuries of the sort Ms. Richardson had. The average wait time for neurosurgical emergency treatment in Nova Scotia, by the way, is less than in Cook County.

    I have worked for years in a variety of different sorts of U.S. health care facilities including inner city hospitals, private academic referral centers, rural community hospitals and the Department of Veterans Affairs. A uniform truth, alas, is that financial incentives play a major role in who gets what care and when. We have scarcity in the midst of excess, to the detriment of patients on both receiving ends.

    If you are uninsured and socially undesirable you can die in Manhattan from an epidural hematoma, despite rapid arrival to an emergency room and what must surely be one of the world’s densest concentrations of medical subspecialty care. I’ve seen it. Trauma patients are disproportionately uninsured and are considered a high medicolegal liability risk.

    Our entire emergency care system is overwhelmed, in large part, due to lack of universal access to other health care. As a result, all Americans are left to rely on a distorted emergency system. When it comes to effective clinical emergency care we should emulate Canada’s single-payer system, not congratulate ourselves on helicopter availability in Aspen.

    Laura S. Boylan is clinical associate professor of neurology, New York University School of Medicine; attending neurologist, Department of Veteran’s Affairs; and board member, Physicians for a National Health Program – Metro NY.

    1. “After the ambulance was summoned for a second time, only 3 hours and 40 minutes elapsed before Ms. Richardson arrived at a neurotrauma center in Montreal. ”

      Only 3 hours and 40 minutes? Did she deal with the possibility that Richardson could have been taken to a closer facility. After all “The intervention required is one of the simplest in neurosurgery.”

      She seems to be more interested in promoting a type of healthcare system than in truly evaluating whether or not that 3 hours and 40 minutes could have been reduced. That is the question and remains the question no matter how many people agree with your philosophy. We are talking medicine, not philosophy..

      1. Again, absent NR’s medical records and input from those who were actually there — doing the hard work of trying to save lives — Allan continues on his fool’s errand. He so wants to prove his point, but wait…: He can’t.

        (And from that article::

        “As reported by the Institute of Medicine, neurosurgeons are often unavailable to provide emergency and trauma care in the U.S. Detailed data on patients referred to specialty hospitals for emergency neurosurgical evaluations is available for Cook County, Illinois. This county, which includes Chicago, is densely populated. Total time elapsed from arrival to a community hospital to arrival at the specialty hospital averaged 11 hours. The comparable time period for Ms. Richardson, who had an accident in rural Quebec, was less than 3 hours. In Cook County most patients would still be awaiting an imaging study at the first hospital.” )

        1. WE are discussing a singular case, Richardson.

          You believe there was no faster way for her to get treatment and almost 4 hours had to pass before she could be at a facility to do what your own expert says is the simplist procedure done by a neurologist.

          What you also are saying (Cook’s County) is that a city with a leftist government for decades can’t provide reasonable access to a hospital.

          I am glad I live in a place where in less than 30 minutes an ambulance can stabilize me and take me to the ER in less than 30 minutes and whether I am insured or not, wheher I can pay or not the emergency will be managed even if I need surgery.

          1. “The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2002 that a man with a vertebral fracture after a fall waited 8 hours in an Austin emergency room before being airlifted to Temple because no local neurosurgeon was available. In Temple, he waited two days for surgery and was eventually billed over $4,000 for the helicopter. In the end, it turned out that there had, in fact, been a neurosurgeon available in Austin; however, he worked at a hospital in a competing network. This is just one case, but it does illustrate how business incentives distort quality in our health care system.”

            1. I am looking to correct those things. You on the other hand are acting like a child that complains instead of trying to make things better.

          2. Dr. Boland:

            “If you are uninsured and socially undesirable you can die in Manhattan from an epidural hematoma, despite rapid arrival to an emergency room and what must surely be one of the world’s densest concentrations of medical subspecialty care. I’ve seen it.”

            1. ““If you are uninsured and socially undesirable you can die in Manhattan from an epidural hematoma, despite rapid arrival to an emergency room and what must surely be one of the world’s densest concentrations of medical subspecialty care. I’ve seen it.””

              You can die anywhere even with the best neurosurgeon available almost immediately. What does that mean?

              The subject is Richardson and the almost 4 hour delay.

              By the way unless the hospital is breaking the law there is no wallet biapsy before emergency treatment is offered. The hospital must treat even if the patient never pays his bills.

              1. There’s “AllanWorld”…and then there’s the real world.

                (And in “AllanWorld”, problems are “solved” (or rather not solved) in a vacuum.)

                1. Does that mean you are ignorant to this fact?

                  By the way unless the hospital is breaking the law there is no wallet biapsy before emergency treatment is offered. The hospital must treat even if the patient never pays his bills.

                  Your knowledge and logic register very low on any scale.

                    1. If Dr. Boland believes that the law forcing hospitals and doctors to treat without consideration of payment doesn’t exist then she is simply unaware of the law and likely doesn’t involve herself in hospital practice.

                      Now that you know this you should recognize the fallacies of some of the arguments you are inferring. If you disagree, look up the law and the fines.

                  1. And psst, in case you can’t reach Dr. Boland:

                    She’s not saying that they won’t be treated, only that they wait…and sometimes die.

                    1. If that is what she is saying and they are making those emergency patients wait because of lack of money then she is unaware of the law as you seem to be.

                    2. I’m aware of the law.

                      You’re working hard on this, though, so give Dr. Boland a call and get back to us.

                    3. “I’m aware of the law.”

                      Then you are trying to change context which isn’t that much different from lying.

              2. “The subject is Richardson and the almost 4 hour delay.”

                Get her medical records, etc. and then get back to us.

                (But in “Allan World”, all of the facts aren’t necessary.)

      2. Words of non-wisdom by Allan: “We are talking medicine, not philosophy..”

        I’m pretty sure that Laura Boland gets that.

        “Laura S. Boylan is clinical associate professor of neurology, New York University School of Medicine; attending neurologist, Department of Veteran’s Affairs; and board member, Physicians for a National Health Program – Metro NY.”

        Let’s see Allan’s medical credentials.

        1. It’s not my credentials that presents a problem rather your inability to deal with complexity and your unwillingness to respond to what is actually written.

            1. The lack of credentials is one problem.
              The tailoring of facts by Allan, and rejection of any facts presented to him that dispute what he wants to believe, is another problem.
              Welcome to AllanWorld.

  3. Maybe we should focus on our own messes, rather than obsessing about an outlier in Canada that took place over 10 years ago.

    July 2, 2019

    “Price of emergency air lift to hospital soars to nearly $40,000”

    https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/07/02/Price-of-emergency-air-lift-to-hospital-soars-to-nearly-40000/3831562098098/

    Needing air ambulance transport might sound like a rare event that couldn’t happen to you, but more than 85 million Americans live in rural locales where a helicopter is their only chance of reaching a trauma center within an hour or less, according to the AAMS.

    This is a prime example of “surprise billing,” since most of these air ambulances are not covered in-network by a person’s insurance, said Shawn Gremminger, senior director of federal relations at Families USA, a health consumer advocacy group.

    “Surprise billing is one of those things that has been recognized by at least some consumer advocates that there’s a real problem here,” said Gremminger, who noted that such surprises usually spring up in a hospital’s emergency services, where a life is on the line and the options are limited.

    In one recent case, 35-year-old radiologist Dr. Naveed Khan rolled an ATV while scooting along the Red River in Texas, according to Kaiser Health News. His left arm was mangled, and the hospital at Wichita Falls decided he needed immediate helicopter transport to a trauma center in Fort Worth if there was any chance of saving the arm.

    The 108-mile flight cost $56,000, Kaiser Health News reported. Khan’s insurer paid about $12,000 of that, leaving him on the hook for the remaining $44,000.

    RELATED Study: Dialysis provider charges private insurers four times more than Medicare

    1. $40,000 I’d like a breakdown of that.

      Helicopter and pilot: Ridden by people and news crews all the time.What is that cost? Certainly not $40,000 everytime a helicopter takes off.
      Medical personal with communication
      Equipment

      Tourists take helicopter rides in NYC for less than $300.

      I’m not saying this in argument and I am not disagreeing with the article. I am just saying that service to those people in those areas can be provided at a lot less than $40,000 a trip.

      1. From the recent NY Times Parenting article, below:

        Excerpt:

        The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which bans the government from controlling fares and routes, has prevented states from regulating air ambulance charges. And if these operators don’t have a contract with a commercial insurance company, they can essentially charge whatever they want.

        As the industry has grown, the number of air ambulance helicopters has risen. But the cost has not decreased: Air ambulance prices doubled between 2010 and 2014, according to a 2017 Government Accountability Office report.

        “There is no infrastructure set up to handle this,” said Donna Rosato, a senior editor at Consumer Reports who has examined air ambulance charges. “And more importantly, there’s not really any recourse for consumers” who feel they have been unfairly charged.

        1. What is the point you are trying to make, that things associated with healthcare are too expensive? I don’t think there is much disagreement with that point.

            1. I don’t think I brought that up because of Canada. Just one post earlier I brought something up about something that happened in France. You read more into what was said than existed and focus on tangential items rather than the item under discussion.

              That is your problem.

              My entry point into the discussion had to do with what you find to be a dirty word “time” Time it takes to get definitive treatment.

              ” one of the major things that counts is the time it takes to get to the operating room the ability or to to stop blood loss on site”

              Take note, again I am interested in the system or guidelines of the situation.

              Then I said “There was a study on trauma with bleeding and the best results correllated with how long it took to get to the hospital.”

              Then Natasha Richardson was brought up for the same reason, ***time***. In this case I believe the centralized system failed and the decentralized system would have succeeded but that is a societal issue and at the time I said these things the point involved *time* not the incidental differences between countries.

              1. “But it’s easier to point the finger at Canada, rather than dealing with our own healthcare mess.”

                Correction:

                But it’s easier to point the finger at an outlier in Canada, rather than dealing with our own healthcare mess.

                Richardson’s case is an outlier. And you’re looking at it with 20/20 hindsight, ten years down the road. Toss in the fact that we’re missing Richardson’s health history, her medical records and pertinent/necessary information from doctors, family, and other people who were involved? It leaves one in the position of having to speculate and guess at possible outcomes. As others have said, it’s a fool’s errand.

                1. You have a real problem focusing. The discussion I entered into and that you later commented on involved time. I provided the quotes and you continue to discuss another subject. Why at the beginning you didn’t state your intention to discuss Canada vs US healthcare is unnown to me except for your focusing problems. You still can’t focus on my concern Time because you are too involved with that hot poker up your behind. That led to you making a lot of statements that made no sense and that led to you misquoting people.

                  These are two different countries that have different systems of operation. One is more centralized and one is more decentralized. That is more to the issue than what you are now discussing. Time was the issue and in cases like this too much centralization becomes problematic.

                  It is up to the people of Canada to determine what system they wish and it is up to the people of the US to determine the type of system they wish.

                  Both countries are paying a steep price for their healthcare systems when one looks at the triad access, cost and quality.

                  If you want to point to a solution for either country go ahead but at least deal with the triad instead of throwing out the classic sh-t and hoping some of it sticks. I am not interested in that type of shallow discussion.

                  1. This was the majority of that comment:

                    “Richardson’s case is an outlier. And you’re looking at it with 20/20 hindsight, ten years down the road. Toss in the fact that we’re missing Richardson’s health history, her medical records and pertinent/necessary information from doctors, family, and other people who were involved? It leaves one in the position of having to speculate and guess at possible outcomes. As others have said, it’s a fool’s errand.”

                    (Any “discussion” with Allan is by definition “shallow.”)

                    1. ““Richardson’s case is an outlier.”

                      Your entire argument disputed my statement that time was of the essence in the Richardson case and the almost 4 hour delay was too long. Are you now agreeing with me on that issue?

                      20/20 hindsight? Do you really believe that it is good to delay definitive treatment in a head bleed for almost 4 hours?

                      “ten years down the road”? Do you believe that Candaian doctors were stupid 10 years ago and didn’t know that time is of the essence where a head bleed is concerned?

                      “we’re missing Richardson’s health history,”? Do you believe that the health records makes the essential element, “time” disappear?

                      You talk about other people being shallow, but look at your statement and look at the questions being asked. Do you think your statement answered the question of “time”? It didn’t. It merely put forward a lot of words without defining the problem or the solution. Go back to the literature and read what was known at the time.

                    2. I would not say that “discussion ” with Allan I’d shallow. Any discussion .with Dr. Allan “I don’t need no stinking knowledge ” Blowhard is pointless.
                      He has this incredible gift, drawing definite conclusion with knowledge, or regard for facts. Disagree with that fool, and he will say it is because you are ingnorant, stupid,ying, etc.
                      In his own mind, Dr. Allan Blowhard is always “right”, even when he is shown to be wrong. Peddling his lamebrained conclusions on the internet is a good opportunity and outlet for him.

      2. The helicopter services that provide regular shuttle-type service have a much more predictable volume of passengers.
        And if a pilot is carrying 4 to 6 passengers per trip, the cost per passenger will be much lower than picking up a patient for a medical emergency.
        If it’s 75 miles out to the site of a patient, that will be at least a 150 mile trip.
        The commercial shuttle services carry departing passengers to one site, pick up more passengers on the return trip.So if it’s a 20 mile round trip, they can have passengers going both ways.
        MediVac service will also has the expense of having medical personell on standby, or out on the calls for a medical emergency.
        You could have 3 or 4 people transporting one patient, not one pilot carrying as many as 6 passengers.
        There may well be price gouging going on as well, but one can’t go by the fare for a helicopter ride in New York in guessing what a reasonable price for medical AirVac should be.

          1. Some interesting info, here:

            Understanding Air Ambulance Insurance Coverage

            https://www.naic.org/documents/consumer_alert_understanding_air_ambulance_insurance.htm

            “Air ambulances most commonly transport patients with traumatic injuries, pregnancy complications, heart attacks, strokes and respiratory diseases. The Association of Air Medical Services estimates that more than 550,000 patients in the U.S. use air ambulances each year. However, using air ambulances is expensive and might not be covered by the patient’s health insurance policy.

            How much does an air ambulance flight cost?

            The average air ambulance trip is 52 miles and costs between $12,000 to $25,000 per flight. The high price accounts for the initial aircraft cost which can reach $6 million as well as medical equipment and maintenance. Also factoring into the price is the cost of round-the-clock availability for specially-qualified medical personnel and pilots to take flight at a moment’s notice.

            Depending on the severity of the medical condition, the number and type of medical staff on board can vary, further impacting the flight price. If you undergo a medical emergency abroad, the cost of medical evacuation back to the U.S. can reach six figures.”

            When traveling abroad, it’s a good idea to purchase medevac insurance.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/everettpotter/2017/06/06/5-reasons-why-you-need-medical-evacuation-coverage/#199ed8084153

            1. “Some interesting info, here:”

              It would be far more enlightening if we knew the marginal prices and if we could place a $ value on such care. Using resources for one thing takes resources away from another.

              1. Well, he have “a dollar volume” estimate for the charges for a tourist helicopter ride and a taxi fare.
                In “AllanWorld”, these would appear to be valid factors in determining the “right” cost for ground or air medical transfers.

                1. “In “AllanWorld”, these would appear to be valid factors in determining the “right” cost for ground or air medical transfers.”

                  Again we see a failure of reading comprehension.

                  That only provides some information on marginal costs. I’m waiting for you to explain why there may be a 40 times difference in costs if the proper systems were being used.

                  (Again I note the word system that you don’t seem to understand. You probably think I am saying taxi cab drivers are bad drivers but that is a totally ridiculous idea in the context of this discussion.)

                  You react with shock to any type of innovation. I think you should leave any sort of policy making or complex thinking to others.

                  1. “I think you should leave any sort of policy making or complex thinking to others.”

                    We certainly wouldn’t want to leave it to Allan. “Complex thinking”? That ain’t happenining in “AllanWorld.”

                    1. “We certainly wouldn’t want to leave it to Allan.”

                      That is why you never address content. Previously you responded and I replied. You provided no evidence of the ability to deal with complex issues.

                      “If Allan does not understand the difference between a commercial helicopter service that regularly transports tourists and others, and a Medevac service that has a complete different objective and set of requirements,”

                      I do, but you are oblivious to all the things under discussion and refuse to delve into the actual differences. If it were up to you we would be using an abacus and telling people to die rather than figuring out how to keep people alive.

                      You won’t even take the example of a $200 bill for outpatient treatment of dehydration vs a $2,000 -$4,000 bill for doing so in a hospital. Thus you believe that helicopter must cost $40,000 for a hundred mile ride when the cost for thousands of miles across an ocean and several days of a private jet with physicians and medical equipment might cost only double.

                      You can’t explain what you don’t know and you don’t even try to work things out. I have provided realtime numbers and you respond with silly juvenile frustration. That is what causes a person to be unintelligent.

          2. How much do you pay for your annual medivac insurance? Sometimes that involves a private jet that is able to fly thousands of miles over oceans. It’s a far cry from $40,000, right? How are they able to do such evacuations if a 100 plus mile trip costs $40,000?

            I am not unfamiliar with air evacuations or travel.

            Things to consider before trying the shotgun approach.

            The competitive market provided you with reasonable air evac service.

            Insurance aided in the transaction because you might not be able to afford the cost but you can afford the insurance.

            During the depression when few could afford hospitals Blue Cross was born.

        1. “The helicopter services that provide regular shuttle-type service have a much more predictable volume of passengers.”

          Do you just make up things as you write? I provided you with some numbers so that you could understand the marginal price of a basic helicopter trip ($200-$300) for the trip . Marginal prices give one an idea of a base price. You don’t think in terms of marginal cost rather you just search the Internet for pricing that is unrelated to what they would be in a well thought out system. (What happened to Richardson was part of a thought out system but failed her and others.) You face the same problem here as you did with Natasha Richardson. You think small and don’t realize a telephone call might have revealed a facility much closer than both of those facilities she was brought to and that facility might have been able to do all the things you mentioned like stabilization, and CT scan but it would also be able to do the definitive treatment.

          Think small and you end up with a case like Richardson’s.

          1. An ambulance run might cost $1500, and a taxicab ride of the same distance might cost $15. Most would understand why these are apples/ oranges types of comparisons.
            I suppose that the one who commented earlier about the cost of a helicopter ride for tourists thought he was making some sort of a point; otherwise, why was it brought up?

            1. “An ambulance run might cost $1500, and a taxicab ride of the same distance might cost $15.”

              This is not an apples to oranges example because there are a lot of similarities between the two rides but they occur in two different systems. (Ah that word system that perplexed you so much in earlier postings.)

              One can go to a cash only clinic for dehydration or a hospital ER. Both will receive fluids and be sent home. One might cost a couple of hundred dollars while the other can cost thousands. Why? The same diagnosis and the same treatment with prices that may be 20 times higher or more at the hospital ER.

              You are too set in your thinking process and can’t seem to take things down to their marginal costs and utility. Why do you think you get so much in your computer today for relatively low dollars when many decades ago it would have cost millions to get a fraction of the computing ability?

              What is the point of all your postings? That things are too expensive? We all know that. That there are failures? We all know that as well.You are interested in hyped stories, but I am looking at how to create better systems for the public at large with costs that are affordable.

              1. “I am looking at how to create better systems for the public at large with costs that are affordable.”

                …one comment at a time. Allan is working hard, here, solving the world’s problems.

                .

                1. Anonymous, if you wish to act stupid, act stupid. Some of us are better educated and some like you pretend. You can’t respond with content so you act stupid like a child.

                  Take note how befuddled you are that treating dehydration in a clinic might cost $200 while in a hospital it might cost $2,000 -$4,000. That is why you become so confused when helicopters are brought into the picture.

                  1. I never mentioned the cost difference between treatment at a clinic compared to the same difference at a hospital.
                    Is Allan now presenting his hallucinations as one of his ways of trying to make a point?

                    1. No, I attempted to demonstrate the difference in costs from one facility to another which demonstrates that all of your content lacks the realistic ability to deal with problems.

                      You prefer stupidity to thinking so you think hallucinations are involved. What a dummy you are.

                    1. Anonymous, I don’t know if Allan is dehydrated, or just gathered and consumed the wrong kind of mushrooms on an outing.
                      Whatever the cause, Allan is not firing on all cylinders.
                      AllanWorld is one strange land, and logic is not accepted in his world.

            2. “I suppose that the one who commented earlier about the cost of a helicopter ride for tourists thought he was making some sort of a point; otherwise, why was it brought up?”

              To demonstrate marginal costs.

              Why don’t you take the $200 helicopter ride and look at its marginal costs to compare it with the costs of using a similar helicopter to take a dying patient quickly to the hospital.

              Show us where the dollars mount up in the latter’s costs until you get to $40,000. I am not saying that the charges to a patient aren’t real, sometimes they are. What I am questioning is the costs and how to get them down.

              You have medivac insurance where an entire private jet with two pilots a doctor and a nurse might have to fly you across the oceans to get you to your hospital in the states. That isn’t costing you $40,000 should that event happen. That type of transport will probably cost the individual $85,000 to $150,0000 from places in Europe and will include all sorts of services including ambulances. That ties the plane and personal up for several days, but is only 2-4 times as expensive as a 100 plus mile trip by helicopter which lasts hours. Don’t you wonder why?

              1. Here in the U.S. @ Burning Man:

                https://burningman.org/event/preparation/health-safety/medflight-evacuation/

                From the site:

                Medflight Evacuation

                Did You Know It Costs $30,000 If You Get Transported Off Playa Via MedEvac?!?

                The most expensive ride on the playa is the one you never want to take: an emergency medical transport to one of the Reno hospitals. Even if you have insurance, it still might leave you with a bill for several thousand dollars, since most insurance doesn’t cover 100% of medical costs. Of course it is considerably worse if you have no insurance at all!

                Every year, it seems, we hear a story or two of a Burner who gets airlifted off playa only to practically need to be resuscitated again when they receive their bill months later. Given that only an unlucky few get airlifted each year, chances are good you’ll never need it, but if you have a complicated pre-existing condition or you are a good little scout and believe in preparedness, it’s worth considering a $50 membership from CrowdRX.

                1. “Here in the U.S….”

                  “If Allan does not understand the difference between a commercial helicopter service that regularly transports tourists and others, and a Medevac service that has a complete different objective and set of requirements,”

                  I do, but you are oblivious to all the things under discussion and refuse to delve into the actual differences. If it were up to you we would be using an abacus and telling people to die rather than figuring out how to keep people alive.

                  You won’t even take the example of a $200 bill for outpatient treatment of dehydration vs a $2,000 -$4,000 bill for doing so in a hospital. Thus you believe that helicopter must cost $40,000 for a hundred mile ride when the cost for thousands of miles across an ocean and several days of a private jet with physicians and medical equipment might cost only double.

                  You can’t explain what you don’t know and you don’t even try to work things out. I have provided realtime numbers and you respond with silly juvenile frustration. That is what causes a person to be unintelligent.

              2. To get a true picture of the contrast between a regular helicopter shuttle service and a Medevac service, one would need to look at a revenue/ expense ledger.
                For example, if a shuttle service costs $1,000,000 a year to operate, and brings in $1.1 million in revenues, there is a 10% profit margin in that business.
                Is a Medevac helicopter services shows the same numbers, that would also be a 10% profit margin.
                Those are only examples, and I don’t know the actual numbers.
                The point is that the operational costs for a Medevac helicopter service are, on a per passenger basis, gining to be a heck of a lot higher than a shuttle service with much higher passenger volume.
                And one helicopter pilot transporting 4-6 passengers is far less expensive, per passenger, that a pilot and 2 or 3 medical specialists transporting one patient.
                So to even mention a $300 charge for a tourist on helicopter ride is ridiculous if one is trying to use that as an argument that Medevac transport is overpriced.
                It may it or may not be overpriced, but bringing up a $300 fare for a tourist helicopter makes no sense in in trying to determine what a Medevac transport should cost.

                1. Again you have lost track of the discussion. The question is why the costs are $40,000 and if the costs have to be $40,000. Apparently too complex for you to discuss.

                  The private jet equiped for a medical evacuation with a doctor, a nurse, a pilot, and a copilot that involves about 3 days to go across the Atlantic Ocean can only cost twice as much as a helicopter going about 100+ miles. With a brain one can see a disparity. Without one a person jumps around making all sorts of statements that doesn’t direct his ideas towards a solution or a rational. That is the state you are in.

                  Then add to the fact that you, a person that can’t understand these events, can buy relatively inexpensive medivac insurance that will guarantee ,if needed ,a plane to take you much further than my example.

                  I think unless one doesn’t exist you should start using your brain instead of playing your foolish games.

          2. If Allan does not understand the difference between a commercial helicopter service that regularly transports tourists and others, and a Medevac service that has a complete different objective and set of requirements, I don’t see any point in trying to explain it to him again.
            He would bring out his big debating guns of “stupid” “ignorant”, lying” etc. we’re that attempt made.
            In AllanWorld, normal regard for basic facts and logic are suspended. That’s why trying to reason with a damn fool like “Allan” is pointless.

            1. “If Allan does not understand the difference between a commercial helicopter service that regularly transports tourists and others, and a Medevac service that has a complete different objective and set of requirements,”

              I do, but you are oblivious to all the things under discussion and refuse to delve into the actual differences. If it were up to you we would be using an abacus and telling people to die rather than figuring out how to keep people alive.

              You won’t even take the example of a $200 bill for outpatient treatment of dehydration vs a $2,000 -$4,000 bill for doing so in a hospital. Thus you believe that helicopter must cost $40,000 for a hundred mile ride when the cost for thousands of miles across an ocean and several days of a private jet with physicians and medical equipment might cost only double.

              You can’t explain what you don’t know and you don’t even try to work things out. I have provided realtime numbers and you respond with silly juvenile frustration. That is what causes a person to be unintelligent.

              1. Real time numbers? You have “provided” nothing that is relevant.
                You are a fraud who has no limits when it comes to ignoring basic facts presented to you.

                1. You provide only the thoughts of a child. I will give an example of factual numbers used in our discussion.

                  “If Allan does not understand the difference between a commercial helicopter service that regularly transports tourists and others, and a Medevac service that has a complete different objective and set of requirements,”

                  I do, but you are oblivious to all the things under discussion and refuse to delve into the actual differences. If it were up to you we would be using an abacus and telling people to die rather than figuring out how to keep people alive.

                  You won’t even take the example of a $200 bill for outpatient treatment of dehydration vs a $2,000 -$4,000 bill for doing so in a hospital. Thus you believe that helicopter must cost $40,000 for a hundred mile ride when the cost for thousands of miles across an ocean and several days of a private jet with physicians and medical equipment might cost only double.

                  You can’t explain what you don’t know and you don’t even try to work things out. I have provided realtime numbers and you respond with silly juvenile frustration. That is what causes a person to be unintelligent.

          3. “part of a thought system” !? This guy gets more entertaining with each doubling down comment.
            AllanWorld is bizzaro world.

            1. Can’t find the quote. Are you lying again, misquoting or what? Did I make a typing mistake?

              You really have difficulty thinking.

    2. Families Fight Back Against Surprise Air Ambulance Bills

      When a seriously ill child needs air transport, parents don’t hesitate to take the flight. Then comes a bill, sometimes upward of $50,000.

      By Christina Caron
      Sept. 4, 2019

      https://parenting.nytimes.com/childrens-health/air-ambulance-bills

      “Tyler Silvy
      @tylersilvy

      So it turns out this – this helicopter flight my 5-month-old daughter is being prepared for here in early February at McKee Medical Center in Loveland – was not medically necessary, according to @AnthemBCBS. The bill is $56,000, and insurance is covering nothing.”

    3. The article states that the median cost of an air ambulance trip was $39,000 in 2016.
      That indicates that these huge bills are not uncommon.
      Up to a point, at least, there is some cost shifting involved because of Medicare reimbursement rates.
      If the rate of Medicare reimbursememt is artificially low, the companies can make up for that by charging many times the Medicare rate.
      One of the Democratic candidates, John Delany, said in the first debate that if hospitals had to accept the Medicare rate of reimbursements, there’s be a large number of hospitals closing down.
      Part of Sanders’ Medicare for All plan is to for e a 50% price reduction for prescription drugs.
      Even in an industry with high profit margins like the pharmaceutical industry, a 50% drop in revenues will have disastrous consequences.
      If the other feature of Medicare for All is to force all health care services to accept the rates set by Medicare, there will be a lot of fallout from that.

    1. Dr. Death, you continue to be an A$$ and a dumb one at that. The only tracks that have to be covered are yours after you schitt in your pants. What is your problem with either OT story posted below?

        1. Yes, Dr. Death you lied about what the neurosurgeon was talking about and you demonstrated phenomenal ignorance. I know it is hard for you. Lacking the ability to think puts you at a disadvantage.

          1. The words of the neurosurgeon would be clear enough to almost anyone but a moron, are a fool doing backflips to distort them.
            When he said he thought everything was handled appropriately, that means that he did not concur with Dr. Allan Blowhard’s claim that there were “multiple failures”.
            He also described the Richardson case as “a rare catastrophic event”.
            That is one indicatation, among others, that they paramedics who initially thought she had a concussion could not have been expected to diagnose an epidural hematoma.
            Any clown with 20/20 hindsight can act like an expert and claim “they should have known” it was other than a concussion.
            I will once again remind Dr. Blowhard that directly quoting someone is not “lying” about what they said.
            He can repeat that stupid accusation as often as he likes, but it does not make his false and idiotic claim any truer.

            1. You are a liar Dr. Death. I quoted the statement and the question both of which referred to the period of time when Natasha refused treatment. Our disagreement starts when she is considered a priority 1.You lied and said it pertained to the later period of time after the ambulance made her a priority 1. You are a liar. He was asked only about the time wasted by her refusal and only answered that time period. He did not talk about the later time period at that time.

              “He also described the Richardson case as “a rare catastrophic event”.” One reason, you fool, that she was considered a priority 1 might have been because of the talk and die syndrome previously discussed. All educated medical professionals that deal with patients of this kind should be aware of the gravity of the situation when a patient has a head injury where the patient is inititally OK but then suddenly becomes ill with a rapidly deteriorating mental status. You are an idiot. You want to forget about any patient injured that needs treament and only treat those that need rest and observation. I can’t believe how stupid you sound. If her mental status remained stable she wouldn’t have died, but that is not the case. Her mental status deteriorated and that points to a more serious injury than a concussion.

              Medical providers are expected to know what can happen so they don’t have to blame 20/20 hindsight when a patients life could have been saved. You are unable to integrate complex facts so this goes way over your head.

              “quoting someone is not “lying” about what they said.” Intentionally quoting someone out of context is most definitely a lie. I provided both the question asked and the answer given (more than what you initially posted) but you refuse to recognize your quote was out of context even though you had several opportunities to review the more complete statement. That makes you a liar and if you don’t see it, it makes you a stupid liar that cannot ever be trusted or rehabilitated.

                1. Actually Dr. Death my favorite words have to do with charity and goodness. I can’t help it that the most accurate words that describe you are stupid and liar. What else am I supposed to say when I twice posted a larger portion of an interview that showed you were wrong. You didn’t bother addressing those posts and continued being stupid and lying.

                  You are not to be trusted. You have existed under another alias and were embarrassed then and changed to anonymous with a possible alias used for a shorter time period in the interim.

                  1. Your “favorite words” show that you a sleazeball who likes to make baseless accusations to cover up your foolishness.
                    Dr.Blowhard can not always count on his assinine claims going unchallenged, but maybe he’s been spoiled here and is shocked that someone actually challenged statements he could not back up.

                    1. “but maybe he’s been spoiled here and is shocked that someone actually challenged statements he could not back up.”

                      Not at all, but I am shocked by your stupidity and the lies you make. You still haven’t shown why there wasn’t a potential system failure with an almost 4 hour delay.

                2. Repeatedly squealing “liar” and “stupid” is about all that Dr. Allan has to work with. I don’t think he really expected to be challenged on his idiotic declaration about ‘multiple failures”, and he has been squirming and flailing to try to justify that comment ever since.
                  I don’t think there is really a limit as to low far a sleazeball like him will go if he thinks he might score some points by distortion and exaggeration.
                  He is a real piece of work.

                  1. No, I have shown you with the neurosurgeons own words why your comment was stupid and by you repeating something the neurosurgeon never said you are lying.

                    Tell us why an almost 4 hour delay was necessary in a critically ill patient. You have been “been squirming and flailing ” trying to avoid responding to the probable system failure.

              1. The “complete statement” was actually consistent with the neurosurgeon’s quoted statements ( everything handled appropriately, and a rare event).
                That was pretty hard to miss, and yet you presented a longer version that supported his statements, then claimed that I took the statements “out of context”.
                You also lob wild accusations in an attempt to prop up your claim about “multiple failures” and throw out the baseless “liar” claim.
                Since you’re slimey enough to do that, I suppose you’ll go for another few hundred comments to top the thread you helped top 800 comments.

                1. The questions had to do with Natasha’s initial refusal of treatment and what effect that could have had. It had nothing to do with the almost 4 hour delay in getting the patient to the hospital that would be able to treat the problem. The almost 4 hours is what is under discussion. Rare and life threatening events are taught in medical schools even if the physician never comes across a case. That is part of the reason medical school is so difficult.

                  Find the statement and show where he talked about the almost 4 hours. That was one of the potential system problems I was talking about.

                  You don’t bother to correct your mistakes but intentionally repeat them making you a liar and stupid.

                    1. I’m not limiting the discussion. I claimed there were probable systemic failures in the system. It is my claim and for the most part the claim has to do with that almost 4 hour time period unless you believe the medics didn’t appropriately inform Richardson the first time they came.

                      You are arguing against my claim so it has to be within my time frame where I felt system failures existed.

                      This is probably too complex for your small mind to understand. The question is whether you are as stupid as you sound or you are too intent on not being proven wrong.

                    2. “Allan needs to recognize that it’s time to move on.”

                      No, it is you who have been proven a liar that should move on. I am just defending my comments regarding a system failure and you are attacking them. You didn’t have to attack them. You didn’t have to enter the discussion. You are creating the mass of needless posts because you are too arrogant to believe you are wrong or too stupid. You can stop the foolishness at any time but you keep it going. Why is it always someone elses fault? Are you unable to look critically look at yourself? Apparently the answer is yes and that is one reason you hide behind an anonymous alias.

                      Just recently you tried to start a new bout of endless postings. Why do you start something you are incapable of finishing? You don’t have the adequate knowledge. You post other peoples ideas but you do not comprehend the words and meanings. Go back to ditch digging or whatever you do.

                    3. Not projection but fact. You are arguing with my claim of system problems within a certain time frame. You want to prove you are right on a completely different subject and a different time frame. How much stupider can one get? You complain about the number of posts but it is you who continues to post and doesn’t bother to even check out the facts

                      There was a system failure within the almost 4 hour time frame. That is what you are arguing against but you have a problem. Your claim of what the experts said do not deal with that nearly 4 hour period. What will you do? Lie of course.

                    4. It’s all he has to make it “his call”. A slimeball like Dr. Allan ” I am always right” Blowhard will try to slither his way out of accusations that he can not support.
                      He pretends to know about “multiple failures” in the medical response to Richardson’s injury, can’t back it up, do he just keeps repeating the same accusation of “multiple failures”.
                      If opinions of specialists in the field state that this was “a rare catastrophic event”, or “very unusual”, or that her case was handled appropriately, Dr. Slimeball will claim that it’s “lying” to directly quote them.
                      It is amazing how far an ignorant clown like Dr. Blowhard will go to try to support baseless accusations against others.

                    5. Dummy, my claim is that she needed to go to a hospital that was able to do the needed procedures. It took almost 4 hours to get there with diversions. Prove the diversions were necessary. Prove they couldn’t have found a closer place.

                      I think it is now recognized that speed is of utmost importance and they may be airlifting this type of patient. If that is so then that is the correction of the system failure I was concerned with and demonstrates that it existed.

                    6. Wrong! Dr. Allan Blowhard is “tailoring” the discussion, and he thinks it IS “his call”.
                      Therefore, your comment must be flawed, with “multiple failures”.
                      Brace yourself for when Dr. Blowhard brings out the big guns, and calls you a liar.

                    7. Subscribe
                      Close

                      Search
                      Search
                      THE SCIENCES
                      MIND
                      HEALTH
                      TECH
                      SUSTAINABILITY
                      EDUCATION
                      VIDEO
                      PODCASTS
                      BLOGS
                      PUBLICATIONS
                      SUBSCRIBE
                      CURRENT ISSUE
                      Cart0
                      Sign In
                      Stay Informed
                      SHARELATEST
                      HEALTH
                      What is “talk and die” syndrome?
                      After a seemingly minor fall on the slopes, actress Natasha Richardson is reportedly suffering from a potentially deadly head injury

                      By Brendan Borrell on March 18, 2009

                      ADVERTISEMENT
                      Last night, British-born actress Natasha Richardson, 45, was rushed from Montreal to New York City in critical condition after a seemingly minor fall on a Quebec ski slope apparently led to bleeding in her brain.

                      Richardson, who won a Tony for her role in the Broadway play Cabaret and has also starred in a string of films including The Parent Trap and Maid in Manhattan, is the daughter of actress Vanessa Redgrave and the wife of actor Liam Neeson, 56, with whom she has two sons, ages 12 and 13. She was reportedly taking a skiing lesson on a beginner slope at the Mont Tremblant resort some 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Montreal when she took a spill.

                      “It was a normal fall,” Lyne Lortie, a Mont Tremblant spokesperson told The New York Times, “She didn’t show any signs of injury; she was talking and she seemed all right.”

                      Still, her instructor summoned the ski patrol to transport her to the bottom of the hill in accordance with the resort’s safety policies. Richardson reportedly refused medical care when an ambulance arrived and went back to her hotel room. About an hour later, however, Lortie said that Richardson complained of a severe headache; she was rushed by ambulance to Hôpital Sacré-Coeur in Montreal, where Neeson met her after flying in from Toronto where he was filming a movie. The actress was then flown by private jet to Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, where she and Neeson have an apartment on the Upper West Side.

                      The family had not issued a statement at deadline and no reports on her condition had been confirmed. However, some media outlets, citing anonymous sources, claim that the actress had been on life support but was removed from it today and was not expected to survive. “It’s so sad. Vanessa, her sister Lynn, everybody is gathering in New York to say goodbye,” a “close friend” of the family told London’s Daily Mail. “No one can believe what has happened, that this once vibrant woman, full of love, of life, is lying there brain dead.”

                      The tragic story, if confirmed, is a reminder that even minor blows to the head can lead to devastating bleeding that can cause strokes or otherwise damage brain tissue. One possibility, sometimes called “talk and die” syndrome, is that the actress had delayed bleeding between her skull and her brain stem, which sits at the top of the spinal cord and regulates consciousness, breathing, and the heart and connects the brain to many of the body’s sensory and motor nerves. Another possibility is that there was a tear in the inner lining of her arteries, causing blood clots. To find out more about Richardson’s potential injury, we spoke with neurosurgeon   Keith Black, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

                      [An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

                      Based on Richardson’s symptoms, what kind of injury do you think she suffered?
                      The possibilities range from what we call an arterial dissection to a preexisting condition that might have been triggered by the event. An arterial dissection is where patients have a very mild injury tear the inner lining of the arteries of the neck, either the carotid or vertebral arteries, and that can occur with even minor trauma that one may not believe to be significant. That tearing in the artery can cause clotting, which can set up a stroke (an interruption of the brain’s blood supply caused by a blockage or a rupture of a blood vessel). If that clot is in the vertebral artery system, it can cause a stroke in the brain stem, which can be devastating.

                      The other possibility is delayed bleeding in the brain. That can be from either a tear in a vein or an artery in the brain tissue itself, and that can be either an epidural hematoma (between the skull and the dura, the membrane that surrounds the brain) or a subdural hematoma (between the dura and the brain).

                      Another possibility is that she had a condition that predisposed her to having a more catastrophic event. This could be an abnormality in how fast her blood clots after a bleed. Or if she’s been on any aspirin, blood thinners, or, supplements like omega-3 fish oil, that can make things worse.   The other thing one has to worry about is whether she had a vascular abnormality in the brain like an arteriovenous malformation (an abnormal connection between high-pressure arteries and low-pressure veins). If an AVM tears one can get a more significant bleed.   

                      I think the two most likely conditions would either be the arterial dissection in the neck or the delayed bleeding within the brain itself.

                      What is “talk and die” syndrome?
                      That refers to the fact that we always worry about people with head injuries that don’t show up immediately, which is why we like to observe people after a head injury for 24 hours. Generally when we talk about “talk and die” it’s usually a delayed bleed like an epidural hematoma.

                      How would you assess a patient after a fall like this?
                      The most important test would be a CT scan (a 3D X-ray that can provide cross-section images of anatomical structures), which would tell you if there is bleeding in the brain itself. If there is bleeding, it would tell you if it needs to be relieved with surgery or with medication. It would also give you an indication if she’s had a stroke, and whether she’s had one of these arterial dissections that may be showering blood clots into the brain.

                      How would you treat her?
                      If there’s bleeding in the brain, if it’s causing pressure and if it’s an area that’s accessible, one may think about surgery to remove the blood clot. Usually, that’s done on an emergent basis, and since we haven’t heard reports that she’s going undergoing surgery then that’s probably not the scenario she’s facing.

                      Another possibility is that the clot is in an area that you cannot safely operate on like the brain stem. That’s because the structures of the brain are very compact in that area, and it’s very risky to operate on. One may then try to manage the clot with medications (such as hypertension drugs like labetalol).

                      Did the fact that she delayed treatment for an hour put her at further risk?
                      Obviously, when it comes to treatment—the earlier, the better. If she had gotten a CT scan right away, doctors likely would have seen the bleed. From what I understand, however, she was examined by a medic, and she was doing fine. We don’t typically scan patients unless there has been a more significant type of trauma. It sounds like everything was managed appropriately and this was one of these rare catastrophic events. Even for patients that do have delayed bleeds, most of them tend to do very well, particularly younger patients. They normally don’t deteriorate that fast, and one has time to stabilize the situation, control the swelling and operate to relieve the blood clot if necessary.

                    8. Now that you pulled up the entire article I note you didn’t bother to focus in on the question. Here is a direct quote from the article that preceded the answer you provided.

                      “Did the fact that she delayed treatment for an hour put her at further risk?”

                      Take note how it deals with Natasha’s refusa not the almost 4 hour delay. You cannot explain that because what you said is not true. You are a liar.

                    9. Dr. Allan Blowhard has strained and twisted himself into impressive evasiveness and distortions to claim that actual assessments and quotations from specialists were presented as “lies”.
                      Does this guy even understand English? When there is a tragic medical outcome, that can happen when there is “a rare medical catastrophic event” and when the response was “handled appropriately”.
                      He has sunk about as low as he can go in claiming that it is a “lie’ to present that opinion by a specialist. Then again, maybe that fool will find a way to sink lower, to claim that Dr. Allan Blowhard must be right.

                    10. The almost 4 hour delay is what troubles me.

                      Deal with the almost 4 hour delay. Does it sound reasonable to you. If it were an 8 hour delay would that sound reasonable?

                  1. It was clear from the chief neurosurgeon’s comments that Richardson’s initial refusal for medical attention caused a delay.
                    It is even more clear, except to a clown with 20/20 hindsight like Dr. Allan Blowhard, that he stated his opinion that everything was handled appropriately, and that this was a “rare catastrophic event”.
                    Dr. Black’s comments SPECIFICALLY have to do with the medical professionals response to her accident. From the time that they were called back to the scene two hours or so after her accident.
                    So specifically, what aspect of Dr. Black’s comments were “taken out of context”? What part of quoting Dr. Black was the “lie” that the sleazebag Dr. Allan Blowhard refers to?
                    It is the hallmark of a sleazebag like Dr. Bloward that HE keeps doubling down on his own set of lies to squirm his way out from reckless and unsupported statements he made when he was running his mouth.

                    1. Did the fact that she delayed treatment for an hour put her at further risk?
                      Obviously, when it comes to treatment—the earlier, the better. If she had gotten a CT scan right away, doctors likely would have seen the bleed. From what I understand, however, she was examined by a medic, and she was doing fine. We don’t typically scan patients unless there has been a more significant type of trauma. It sounds like everything was managed appropriately and this was one of these rare catastrophic events. Even for patients that do have delayed bleeds, most of them tend to do very well, particularly younger

                    2. “Did the fact that she delayed treatment for an hour put her at further risk?”

                      That deals with hour one not the almost 4 hours. Show us where the doctor is dealing with the almost 4 hours. You can’t.

                    3. The cut and paste of the neurosugeon’s comments did not completely post.
                      The remainder of Dr. Keith Black’s statement should appear below, if these comments ard in sequence.
                      He states that Richardson’s case was handled appropriately, and that this was a rare catastrophic event.
                      He was specifically referring to the medical response to her injury.

                    4. “Richardson’s case was handled appropriately, ”

                      For the first hour which is not under discussion. The almost 4 hours is.

                    5. “It was clear from the chief neurosurgeon’s comments that Richardson’s initial refusal for medical attention caused a delay.”

                      We agreed on that from the beginning. What is disputed is whether or not an almost 4 hour delay was a system failure. The doctor did not discuss that time period so his words tell you nothing about whether or not there was a system failure. The question being answered was: “Did the fact that she delayed treatment for an hour put her at further risk?” Once Richardson was made a priority 1 the question of how things were done first come to light.

                      You seem to think medical professionals aren’t trained in rare catastrophic events Head injuries are not rare and bleeds in the head though not a frequent event with a head injury occur. With head trauma a bleed is one of the things a professional would worry about.

                      Now get back to the issue of an almost 4 hour delay. Your reading comprehension skills are near negligible.

                    6. “It sounds like EVERYTHING was handled appropriately”. The “EVERYTHING” was capitalized by me, in case somebody missed it.
                      The other part of Dr. Black’s commemt, about this being a rare catastrophic event, is an indication that the paramedics should not be second guessed on their initial assessment that they were dealing with a concussion.
                      That is not the only reason that it is unfair to Monday Morning Quarterback the paramedics.

                    7. Referring to the question asked about the first hour the doctor felt that hour was handled OK. There was no question about the subsequent treatment or delay of almost 4 hours. Show us where that answer is without using the answer to the question about the first hour. You can’t.

                      Answer the question. Would an 8 hour delay been appropriate? If not, why not?

                      You continue lying.

                    8. Had they just “been doing her nails”, as was suggested earlier, a 4 hour delay would be an obvious “failure” in the medical response to Richardson’s injury.
                      The time it took for the ambulance to reach the ski resort, the paramedics initial treatment and assessment, the travel time to a nearby hospital, the diagnosis (CAT Scan, etc.), the stabilization were all part of the so-called 4 hour delay.
                      I think the ambulance was called at 3PM, and she reached Montreal by about 6:45 PM. Even if one choses, with the benefit of hindsight, to criticize the decision to take her to a nearby hospital, how does an immediate decision to rush Richardson to Montreal “ssve” 4 hours.
                      An ambulance called at 3PM is not likely to arrive at the ski resort at 3PM. There is the transport time even if an immediate decision was made to bypass the closer hospital and race off to Montreal, they paramedics need some time to at least load the patient in the ambulance.
                      So where they to skip an intial assessment to save time? Forget about setting up oxygen and IVs?
                      Delay a CAT Scan because a trip to Montreal takes 3 times as long as the trip to the closer hospital? Forget about stabilization that was available and closer at the nearby hospital?
                      There was no “4 hour delay” in responders’ efforts to save Richardson’s life.

                    9. You are unable to stay on focus and keep jumping around. I am talking about a system failure which I believe occurred whether Richardson lived or died. You are talking mostly about whether or not Richardson would have survived.

                      Look at the time lines you have mentioned (I don’t know if they are totally correct or not) If our idea is to save a life of a person that will bleed into the head killing them then time is of the essence. You saw that in the article you posted regarding burr holes where the idea was to shorten the time by possibly providing immediate surgical remediation on site. That by itself is recognition that time is of the essence.

                      I won’t go through all the explanations again but time didn’t seem to be the most important criteria in her care. Thus there was an almost 4 hour delay. To correct the systemic problem one has to reduce the delay and that means removing an intermediate step.

    2. Absent Natasha Richardson’s medical records, as well as input from the medical personnel involved, Allan has nothing. Without this additional information, one can’t conclude that there were any “delays.”

      1. Without this additional information, one can’t conclude that there were any “delays.”

        Or “multiple failures.”

        Allan isn’t a doctor, and doesn’t have enough information, but that hasn’t stopped him from reaching his baseless conclusions.

        1. All one has to do is look at the almost 4 hours it took to get Natasha to a hospital that could treat her. They can then check to see if the problem was rectified which I think it was to some extent. That proves my case and leaves anonymous outside naked for everyone to see the wretched individual he is.

          1. “They can then check to see if the problem was rectified which I think it was to some extent.”

            What the eff is Allan blabbering about?

            1. I think they are now using a helicopter to transfer to the trauma center for cases like Richardson. Not sure but I think they are doing so.

      2. Almost 4 hours to get the patient to a hospital that can do the necessary procedure alone is enough of a delay to prove my case. Someone should suture your mouth shut so that you sound more intelligent.

  4. OT: It looks like NY is running out of other people’s money or perhaps the other people are running out of NY. (a basic lesson that should be taught in Econ 101)
    —-

    Carl Icahn Is Heading to Florida for Lower Tax Rates

    (Bloomberg) — Billionaire Carl Icahn is planning to move his home and business to Florida to avoid New York’s higher taxes, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Icahn, 83, who was born in the Far Rockaway neighborhood in Queens, New York, has been an icon on Wall Street for decades. In the 1990s, he bought a mansion in the exclusive Indian Creek island enclave on Biscayne Bay in Miami.

    The move is scheduled for March 31 and employees who don’t do so won’t have a job, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter was private.

    cont: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/carl-icahn-heading-florida-lower-223623567.html

    1. “I am talking about a system failure”. This is Dr. Allan’s spin of what he has presented.
      In fact, he is blaming decisions made by the medical personell who were trying to save her life. “The system” did not force the paramedics to make an initial assessment of a concussion.
      “The system” did not force the paramedics, the dispatcher, and others involved in the decision to take Richardson to St. Agathe, rather than immediately take her on a trip to Montreal 3 times as long as the closer hospital.
      There are reasons why the decision makers in her case, not “the system”, made the call to get her to a CT Scanner and stabilize her.
      And there are reasons why a Monday Morning Quarterback, working on the few available know facts of her case, could claim in hindsight that they made the wrong call.
      That could be true whether an airmchair expert like Allan decides to spout off about “multiple failures” in taking her to St.Agathe, or if she:s been taken directly to Montreal and Dr. Allan had claimed “Well, they should have taken her to the nearby hospital, scanned and stabilized her”.
      The opportunities for someone like Allan to pretend that he has knowledge he doesn’t have, and confidently declare in hindsight that her case was mishandled, are present regardless of which course of action had been taken. He or anyone pretending that they “know” the best course of action are Blowhard’s.
      As to his challenge that I prove there were NOT systematic failures, I am not the one who started this by claiming that there were systemic failures. That was Allan’s gig, and since he made the accusation, it was up to him to back up that accusation.
      He has failed to do so, and most of his comments have been trying to prop up a baseless accusation, and cover up the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      1. Absent Natasha Richardson’s medical records, as well as input from the medical personnel involved, Allan has nothing.

        1. Aonnymous, that is not true for I have the time it took to get Natasha to the hospital that could actually save her life. The time was way to long, almost 4 hours.

          1. Allan says, “I have the time it took to get Natasha to the hospital that could actually save her life.”

            This is something that Allan believes based on limited information. If NR hadn’t refused treatment twice, she might have had a shot. And if she’d agreed to be seen/treated right away, they might — emphasis on “might” – have made it to Montreal in time for a craniotomy or burr hole.

            But:

            “Even after prompt treatment, someone may have permanent brain damage or disability.”

            https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320260.php

            1. So, I’ll say it again:

              Absent Natasha Richardson’s medical records, as well as input from the medical personnel involved, Allan has nothing.

            2. The system failure has little to do with the patient. It has to do with the system and that system provided almost a 4 hour delay in definitive treatment.

      2. “In fact, he is blaming decisions made by the medical personell”

        I don’t think I ever blamed the medical personal. The people on the scene were told where to go and that was part of the system. Why else would they take her to a hospital that might treat more minor injuries but couldn’t treat a bleed that was rapidly killing a patient. How much further a facility was that could have done the procedure is unknown but the system likely said ‘take her to the trauma hospital’ after being evaluated and after wasting time. I wonder if part of the system at the time bothered to use a telephone to deal with a very critical injury that didn’t have the time. We both agree they didn’t have helicopter transport but I bet they do now. If they do that improves the system.

        You cover your idiocy with a lot of words but never answer the underlying question of the time factor and almost 4 hours. I think you are more upset over the fact that your vision is so limited and another has a broader vision of how to improve things. That is your ego once again fighting to prove worth you do not have.

        “As to his challenge that I prove there were NOT systematic failures, I am not the one who started this by claiming that there were systemic failures. That was Allan’s gig, and since he made the accusation, it was up to him to back up that accusation.”

        I already did in almost every posting. The system failure was the amount of time spent getting her to the actual place that could potentially save her life. Haven’t you noted my complaint of almost 4 hours to get to the treating hospital? I guess not because otherwise you wouldn’t have made the above statement.

        1. You can not reasonably claim that you’re not blaming anyone for the claimed “multiple failures”.
          PEOPLE make decisions involved in how a give medical issue is handled.
          You can not make some vague claim about “the system” failing in the Richardson case without reviewing the decision process involved on the part of those trying to save her.

            1. No, I think the exact time was 3 hours and 40 minutes give or take. That is almost 4 hours. We have mentioned the exact times when the priority 1 was created and when the patient arrived at the hospital.

          1. Yes, people make systemic decisions but not necessarily the medical professionals.

            Somewhere along the line the powers to be established a system that took into account more typical problems. The question is whether or not that left out certain less typical problems. The almost 4 hour delay points to a system failure regarding some atypical problems.

            1. There are established guidelines dealing with responses to a variety of acute medical issues.
              Those guidelined can change from time to time, and are not necessarily uniform in all parts of the U.S.
              Or Canada.
              Regardless of the guidines, there are still decisions to be made based on a variety of factors.
              For example, the initial assessment of paramedics may determine the facility a patient is transported to.
              One piece of information available in the Richardson case is the communication from the paramedics while in route to the first hospital.
              ( That’s in addition to whatever transmissions they made from the scene before transporting her).
              Their assessment was that she he had suffered a concussion. Based on the information that we do have, I see no reason to question the judgement of those who were first on the scene, based on their observations.
              The question then is “Should a concussion patient with her symptoms be immediately rushed to a distant hospital with a major trauma unit”?
              I don’t think that the guidelines call for that, at least in most areas.
              One factor in formulating these guidelines is the concern about unnecessarily clogging overtaxed ERs and trauma centers with patients more appropriately taken to nearby, smaller hospitals.
              The decisions made in the Richardson case seemed to be appropriate, based on what they knew at the time.
              I don’t see how those decisions are “system failures”, either.

              1. I am rewriting a response answered quite awhile back but never appeared on the blog.

                “There are established guidelines dealing with responses to a variety of acute medical issues”

                If you like the term guidelines that is fine. It is a good term but guidelines coexist with systems that are in place. Systems aren’t necessarily created by medical professionals and even medical guidelines can be altered by non professionals.

                “Their assessment was that she he had suffered a concussion.”

                Yes, she suffered a concussion but did she also suffer a bleed?

                “The question then is “Should a concussion patient with her symptoms be immediately rushed to a distant hospital with a major trauma unit”? I don’t think that the guidelines call for that, at least in most areas.”

                That is what I call a system failure. The bleed is the real emergency whereas the concussion would be of much less urgency and more run of the mill. Did they know she wasn’t a routine problem? Should critical conditions be handled like routine problems? (I don’t think so.) We have to guess that they recognized this patient was more critical than the vast majority of patients they treat based on a troublesome Glasgow score, a deteriorating mental status, and ‘talk and die’. Did the system appropriately account for the most serious conditions? That is the issue under discussion.

                A bleed should always be in the back of the minds of medical professionals that recognize the urgency. You seem to believe that the only facility that could relieve the pressure of a bleed is a trauma center. That would mean that Canada had no closer facilities that could both do a CT and a burr hole and then transfer the patient to the trauma hospital buying the patient’s life a little extra time. Have you checked the possible facilities in that area? A closer facility to just drill the burr hole decreases the delay for that type of patient.

                This problem is not as uncommon as you believe. You should have recognized that when you posted the article on burr holes. They were discussing doing burr holes on the site so the patient wouldn’t die on the way to the hospital or the trauma hospital.

                Since they didn’t seem to have a system to separate the sickest from the rest I wonder if the system was created based solely on the odds. That is not the way medicine should be practiced. I think their system has already been changed to account for this type of system problem. I think they now use helicopters and that helps correct the failure I have been talking about.

                This posting of yours seems like an attempt to address the systems involved. It is the best effort to date by you but I think you drew a conclusion and then looked for things that satisfied the conclusion instead of maintaining an open mind drawing conclusions after you had more information.

                We have to recognize that Canada has a centralized system of medical care and that can lead to certain holes in treatment. The specific hole that occurred here might not occur in a more decentralized medical system. There are advantages and disadvantages and they have to do with the risks and benefits.

                The risk is loss of life the benefits have to do with preserving resources. Where on the line one places their emphasis is a societal decision.

        2. As a matter of fact, I did ‘notice” and address your bogus claims of a 4 hour delay.
          Several times, and you just keep repeating the same BS.

          1. The word almost 4 hours means almost 4 hours. One counts the time from the released times and that has been done repeatedly but you ran out of other arguments so now you are going to argue about almost..

            1. I know what “4 hours” means, and what a bogus claim of “a 4 hour delay” means.
              You can not make that claim come true, no matter how many times you decide to repeat it.

            2. Allan said, “No, I think the exact time was 3 hours and 40 minutes give or take. That is almost 4 hours.”

              It’s 4 hours to you because you want it to be 4 hours — or longer.

              3 hours and 40 minutes is more accurate. In the medical world — of which you’re clearly not a part — 3 hours and 40 minutes does not equal 4 hours. And in the medical world, accuracy counts. In yours? Not so much.

              1. A bigger issue is that you can’t call for an ambulance at 3 PM, have the paramedics there at 3:01 PM, and have the patient in Montreal at 3:02 PM.
                Even IF they had bypassed the nearby hospital and headed straight for Montreal, there is still a time factor involved that makes it impossible to “save” 4 hours.
                Or 3 hours, 40 minutes.
                This has already been covered.
                Theoretically, they might have got her to Montreal in 2 hours, if you skip the CAT Scan and stabilization at the closed hospital.
                There was general agreement that she might possibly have arrived in Montreal 2 hours sooner, before Allan went back to his “4 hour delay” crap.

                1. Please don’t go back to being ignorant again. From the time of notification to the time the patient arrived for definitive treatment was a delay of almost 4 hours. That doesn’t define what the delay was. If the ambulance drivers had stopped prior to picking Natasha up and had lunch for one hour then the delay would be almost 5 hours.

                  1. And if they’d hut the ski slopes for a few hours before answering the call for Richardson, it would have been about 7 hours.
                    And if you don’t have a point to make and want to toss out ridiculous scenarios instead, maybe they might have clicked out early that day, and the ambulance would not have been there until the following day.
                    Your comment can just be added to your stack of previous worthless observations.

                    1. No. You are wrong. The systems responsibility starts when they are notified of the problem along with any of the details they are provided. Emergency response times are one of the most important things having to do with the delivery of healthcare to those that are critically ill but not in a hospital or suitable facility.

                      Time is of the essence for many of the critically ill and that is why so much effort is spent in speeding up the process even if it is just by a few minutes. I would think that you would be aware of that. For instance to reduce the delay in emergency transport you will note that ambulances might pass red lights, ambulances will use their sirens and cars will stop or move to the side. That is the whole idea behind emergency service, get the patient to the hospital as quickly as possible.

                      I think you would do better reading https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/05/trump-ridiculed-for-altered-hurricane-forecast/comment-page-4/#comment-1882185 @ 11:06 PM.

              2. You want to nitpick. The exact times were provided many times along with the exact hours and minutes. Almost 4 hours is appropriate and easier to type. It was also used to pierce a denseness that needed to be pierced.

  5. OT: Christine Blasey Ford’s Father Supported Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation

    After Christine Blasey Ford publicly alleged that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her, her father repeatedly communicated to Kavanaugh’s father that he supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

    Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino
    Last year, when Christine Blasey Ford emerged after then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to accuse him of attempted rape at a house party when both were teenagers, there were many unanswered questions both about her story and her credibility.

    She offered no proof that she and Kavanaugh had ever even met. She couldn’t remember where it happened, when it happened, or how she arrived at or departed from the party. None of the four alleged witnesses she eventually named, including one of her closest lifelong friends, corroborated her accusations. Prior to airing her allegations with the media, she scrubbed her entire social media history that indicated she was a liberal activist.

    To this day, there is zero evidence beyond her claims that the alleged assault ever happened. One detail, however, remains particularly intriguing. The Blasey family stayed conspicuously silent about the veracity of her allegations. A public letter of support for Ford that began “As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family . . .” wasn’t signed by a single blood relative. Reached for comment by the Washington Post, her father simply said, “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” before hanging up.

    Privately, however, it appears the Blasey family had significant doubts about what Ford was trying to accomplish by coming forward and making unsubstantiated allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Within days of Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, a fascinating encounter took place. Brett Kavanaugh’s father was approached by Ford’s father at the golf club where they are both members.

    Ralph Blasey, Ford’s father, went out of his way to offer to Ed Kavanaugh his support of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, according to multiple people familiar with the conversation that took place at Burning Tree Club in Bethesda, Maryland. “I’m glad Brett was confirmed,” Ralph Blasey told Ed Kavanaugh, shaking his hand. Blasey added that the ordeal had been tough for both families.

    The encounter immediately caused a stir at the close-knit private golf club as staff and members shared the news. The conversation between the two men echoed a letter that Blasey had previously sent to the elder Kavanaugh. Neither man returned requests for comment about the exchanges.

    Blasey never explicitly addressed the credibility of his daughter’s allegations, but he presumably wouldn’t have supported the nomination of a man he believed tried to rape his daughter.

    It wasn’t just Ford’s father. The national drama played out on a decidedly local scale as the D.C.-based family and friends of Ford’s quietly apologized to friends and family of Kavanaugh, even as the toxic political environment made it punitive for them to speak up publicly.

    One friend who was subjected to both public scrutiny and private pressure because she cast doubt on Ford’s story was Leland Keyser, one of Ford’s closest friends at the time of the alleged attack. Keyser wanted to support her but nevertheless had no recollection of the event.

    Keyser’s son noted on a GoFundMe page for his mother that she put “everything in her life at risk” in order to tell the truth about Ford’s allegations. Son Alex Beckel wrote that his mom “resisted immense personal pressure and courageously came forward with the truth,” adding that she “stood up and did what was right when she had everything to lose and nothing to gain.”

    While there was no evidence to support Ford’s claim other than her testimony, some believed her because they said she would have no motivation to lie. Critics point to the nearly $1 million she raised in GoFundMe accounts and the honors that Sports Illustrated and Time Magazine bestowed on her. New books featuring her cooperation downplay the copious problems with her account.

    So what was the point of the cavalcade of unsubstantiated allegations? Ford’s attorney Debra Katz offered not so much a hint as a confession. Ford testified that she had no political motivation. But in remarks captured on video, Katz admitted that Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh were at least in part driven by fear he might not sufficiently support unregulated abortion on the court.

    “We were going to have a conservative” justice, she said, “but he will always have an asterisk next to his name” that will discredit any decision he makes regarding abortion. What’s more, she added, “that is part of what motivated Christine.”

    Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino are the authors of the best seller Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court.

      1. https://youtu.be/9tPCdILdWBE

        Just a prosthetic nose piece, covering the ears (a give away) with a wig, huge glasses (to also cover the face and ears).

        What she/he can’t find glasses that fit correctly? C’mon.

        Just some make-up and a whispering voice.

        They both have similar blue eyes and eye shape. Maybe a fraternal twin/relative?

        ….This is quite possibly an inside joke, for sure.

        Or, to be sure, just put them in the same room together to be 100 % sure… it’s not an inside joke. Then, okay, fine.

      2. That is right DSS, a lot of these things are hard to verify but one of the advantages of a blog with intelligent people is that sometimes people will respond with some additional information. I think it is pretty clear that Ford was FOS so it is quite believeable especially after the remarks Kamala’s father made about some of her comments and what he thinks.

        1. I had to look both of these up bc I am out of touch with Tranny Land these days.

          The CBF father and the Harris father.

          Ed Ford is just an old school arse.

          It’s more e embarrassing than anything else, in a wealthy close-knit community.

          Even if Christie came to him, her father, at whatever age she was (~15), back in that day, in the 80s (I believe), it would have still been her fault.

          Either her clothes, or why she was even at the party.

          #RugSweeping

          Note: In these families, Image is Everything. The public image above all else, the member’s health is secondary.

          The whole is what is important.

          #Brainwashing
          #NarcissisticCultFamily

          On the other hand,

          Don Harris just seems like a disappointed father, who is annoyed with pandering.

          He does not seem like an arse. Just an intellectual educator who is mildly annoyed with his daughter’s behavior, who happens to be well into her adult years.

          In fact, I’m not sure why these fathers are even commenting about their daughters…?

          I, personally, do not think I would comment to anyone about my adult child.

          Here is my response:

          “My child, is an adult, my child has not been under my care for decades. I have no comment. Thank you.”

          But anyway,

          Bringing Kamala Harris’s father into the mix, in an attempt to compare with Christie Ford’s father…

          It is like Apples and Oranges.

          I don’t even see how they relate at all.

          One is a serious accusation of rape; the other is just some nonsense about “smoking pot.”

          1. There you again with another asinine comment drawing conclusions without the facts, making up stories and excuses etc. Once again you are throwing out information whether it be true or false and not adding anything.

            1. I’m sorry. I will have to get back to you in a minute.

              I am currently filling out forms to get a senior citizen her discount on her electric bill. She has been missing out for years. 62 + gets an electric bill discount. She is 77. Shame!

              I’m also seeing these co-op, pod shares in L.A.—that’s not the solution. It looks like the real, real world, and not the reality show.

              How about the landlords just lower the rent, bc the rent is just too damn high.

              Is the bubble going to burst soon? I hope so. Where’s my needle…I think the dog ate it. Just kidding.

              If you were here Allan, I would show you the tiniest ants I have ever seen in my life…where there is a will, there is a way. Ants. 😁

        2. And Burning Tree Club, is that some Satanist Pagan Tranny Reverso name, for a golf club?

          What a strange name for a golf club.

          Almost as strange as the giant owl up in Bohemian Grove.

          I guess the Bull statue would have been to expensive, so they just got the Owl instead. Lol. 😉

          And I am not saying whether CBF is or is not a man, or a twin, or in a mask, or being truthful in her/his accusations.

          Seems like some asking questions were smirking a bit though….so maybe they were in the hazing.

          Just kidding.

          It was only theatrical.

          Just kidding on that too.

          Very serious….yeah. 😉

    1. What is striking is that these two, CBF and BK, look like fraternal twins. Why such big glasses Christie? Show us your ears under that questionable wig…? Is it a wig?

      I would like to see CBF and BK in the same room, just to be 100 % sure that this is not some big joke…some frat nonsense to get the job.

      1. From Dr. Black the neurosurgeon: “Generally when we talk about “talk and die” it’s usually a delayed bleed like an epidural hematoma.”

        That means the patient is very critical and can die without treatment and needs definitive care as fast as possible. That is why the delay was a system failure. That is why the anonymous’s should be recognized as stupid as should anyone else who gives them credence..

    1. What a nincompoop. Talk and die syndrome has to do with delayed bleeding where the person seems OK but then the symptoms start. The nincompoop just gave the reason why both anonymous’s have been so foolish. That syndrome has been recognied to be very dangerous and is probably what made her a priority 1. That would mean definitive treatment as fast as one can get.

Leave a Reply