“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. It is always the doctors and others that the really needy patients claim is sick. You and Diane domuch better in a rubber room.

  2. Ah, the same old song and dance, from Allan about Natasha Richardson.

    He doesn’t seem to understand that one can’t really count the time on the road in his “delay” timeline because that chunk of time is the same in both equations; it’s the same whether they stopped at an intermediary hospital or not.

    This takes one down to two hours — the 30 minutes before she left for the hospital in Sainte-Agathe and the 1:35 minutes at the hospital where we know she had a CT scan.

    He’ll need the medical records, if he wishes to “prove” anything else.

    If she’d not refused treatment x 2, we might not be here. She needed treatment during those early hours.

    From a comment downthread:

    “…as someone pointed out earlier, maybe his (Allan’s) obsessive commenting here on any and all subjects means that he can’t do as much damage elsewhere.”

    1. Pure stupidity.

      You suddenly have a case of diarrhea and need to find a toilet. You know a toilet exists at point B less than 85 minutes away but before you go to point B you go to point A where you get instructions on proper procedure. Then you go to point B where the toilet exists but end up there almost 4 hours later. By that time you did it in your pants and now your pants stink.

      You think that you went about finding a toilet in the right fashion but your pants tell a different story.

      Even a kid would tell you to check the smart phone for a closer bathroom than both point A and point B and there might be something found within minutes. Unfortuantely that is something too difficult for you to comprehend so we all smell the stink when you walk into the room.

      1. Does Allan and Anonymous (the original) need a mediator?

        I am available for service.

        I do charge though…in Starbuck’s coffees.

        1. Everyone that chooses the name anonymous seems to be a dumba$$ and now we have one that wishes to be a mediator. One doesn’t need a mediator in this situation. Anonymous sometimes known as Diane is a pitiful lonely woman that you can pair up with and everything will be fine.

        2. “Does Allan and Anonymous (the original) need a mediator?

          I am available for service.

          I do charge though…in Starbuck’s coffees.” Anonymous (not “the original”)

          No, I’ll let you have Allan all to yourself. Won’t that be fun. /sarc

          He’ll just be spinning more yarns about the lives he could have saved…, if only he’d been in charge…and people had listened to him.

          1. “He’ll just be spinning more yarns about the lives he could have saved”

            Anonymous, I’m the one that finds system faults. You are the one that sh-ts in his pants because he can’t find a place to go that is closer than almost 4 hours.

            1. Keep on saving the world, “Allen” — one worthless comment at a time. Have fun finding what you believe are ‘system faults’. The whole world is paying attention. People are waiting for your next big ‘reveal’.

        1. No. I can figure out a system to prevent such problems. Are you wearing diapers now or do you just sh-t in your pants and stink up every place you go?

  3. “an concussion resulting in some disorientation should be assumed to be cranial bleeding.”

    When the patient feels well and then suddenly the patient mental status spirals towards death some type of severe cranial injury is very likely and bleeding is generally part of the problem. That is what happened here and it was known. That means the hospital goes where definitive treatment can be given.

  4. “Dr. Blowhard likes to dismiss quoted statements as “out of context” if they conflict with the point he’s been struggling and stumbling to make.
    The entire statements do not conflict with the conclusions reached by Drs.Sun and Black.”

    Anonymous, some people have no end to the stupidity. The question asked of Dr. Black and his answer had nothing to do with the almost 4 hours it took to get the patient to the hospital for definitive treatment. The question and statement were quoted in full.

    If you are too stupid to understand that then there is no use explaining your failure to understand what Dr. Sun said.

    1. The opinion expressed by Dr. Black that her case was handled appropiately has everything to do with the medical response to her injury.
      Dr. Bloward goes to extraordinary lengths to throw that opinion out because it does not support his “expert” claim of multiple failures in how her case was handled.

      1. “The opinion expressed by Dr. Black that her case was handled appropiately has everything to do with the medical response to her injury.”

        Here is the question and answer by Dr. Black. Anonymous continues to lie about the answer. The answer refers only to the delay caused by Richardson and not the subsequent care. The two anonymous’s lie through their teeth and are stupid to boot.

        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.

  5. “I didn’t know that Dr. Blowhard had access to Richardson’s medical records.”

    Dr. Death, I know Richardson was taken to a facility that didn’t have the ability to operate. I know that took a lot of time based on your statements regarding travel times so that the trip that could have been less than 85 minutes took almost 4 hours. I know she wasn’t taken to any closer facility that could perform the needed surgery either.

    Now you can tell us about the medical records and what was done that justified the almost 4 hour travel time.

    1. It was too late, Allan. Time to give it up.

      https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/05/trump-ridiculed-for-altered-hurricane-forecast/comment-page-3/#comment-1881067

      ”Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun.” -Dr. Dexter Sun, NY Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell

      1. you and Allan need to get a room and see who tops and who bottoms. I think Allan is a bottom boy so take pics and keep Paul posted. He has a mancave, he tells us, and his liberal wife thinks his manpart is tiny like Trump’s hands, so Paul might be a good third for ya’ll

        🤠

        1. Anonymous – my liberal wife and every woman I have been with has been very satisfied with my manpart. BTW, never judge a book by it’s cover.

          I actually have an office with an overlarge desk, two computers and three monitors and a heavy duty printer. Someone else referred to it as a mancave, but it really isn’t. It is a work space.

          1. Mr. Schulte,
            The 4:55 PM anonymous needs to find a different website that is more in line with his particular fantasies.
            Not judging his interests or preferences or lifestyle or fantasies, but I’m sure he could find material out there somewhere that would be more appealing and exiting for him.

      2. Dr. Death, you have to pick one of several scenarios that you have supported where there are many conflicts created from one to another. That means that your argument for one scenario has a conflict with another scenario so in essence you are arguing with yourself. I am not proposing a scenario rather a time line and pointing out the systems errors.

        If a person is unlikely to survive we don’t generally walk away and let them die when there is a chance of life. That is what Dr. Death does, walk away, but that is a nutty way of thinking.

    2. I posted the contraindications to burr hole surgery. I went over the critical factors of correct diagnosis through imaging, and patient stabilization.
      I mentioned life-threatening threatening conditions associated with head injuries, such as hyponatremia.
      Dr. Blowhard either ignored or glossed over all of this, and continues with his “nearly 4 hour delay” tripe.
      The decision to intially take Richardson to a nearby hospital might be questioned with the benefit of 20/20 and an assumption that first responders could immediately diagnosis an epidural hematoma without the benefit of imaging.
      Even with that 20/20 hindsight, it’s still an exaggeration to claim that there were multiple failures in the medical response to Richardson’s accident.

      1. You are skirting the issue that every author you have quoted will also worry about, the time factor. Amost 4 hours to a place that could offer the life saving surgery in a patient rapidly dying. Your article on a device for easier burr hole treatment discussed its use by non neurosurgeons at the scene.

        Your contraindications have nothing to do with the time factor which is what is at issue.

        A head injury which at first is assumed to be nothing followed by mental status changes has to be assumed to be some type of bleed that needs surgical care as soon as possible. They knew the mental status was deteriorating at the scene.

        Dr. Death you don’t understand what you are reading and you don’t know how to put facts together. In this case it is simple but you miss it.

        1. Neither of the specialists quoted was critical of the initial decision to transport her to the nearer hospital.
          They did not claim that there were “multiple failures” in responding to Richardson’s accident.
          That conclusion was from Dr. Allan Blowhard, this site’s medical expert.
          Stating that her case was handled appropriately does not support Dr. Bloward’s accusation of “multiple failures”.
          That statement, whether as a stand-alone quote or “in context” of the lengthier statement, says the same thing either way.
          You can try to distort it by claiming that it’s “out of context”, but that is nothing more than a weak ploy.

        2. I have releatedly explained why the decisions that were made were consistent with established medical guidelines.
          For that to be perceived as “skirting the issue”, the one who claims that is either extremely stupid or willfully ignorant.

          1. You explained nothing that was pertinent to her specific case. You are unable to deal with complex reasoning. The likely and greatest risk to her survival was some type of vascular phenomenen like a bleed that might need surgical remediation very quickly.

            What you have been doing is averaging all the patients and all the risks. You are not smart enough to focus on the particular event. That takes intellectual prowess something you do not have.

            Established medical guidelines have system failures all the time. You aren’t even able to understand the terms involved in this case.

            Very low level of thinking. Gosh I hope you are not a teacher.

            1. Virtually everything that I wrote has been ” pertinent to her specific case”.
              You are either very stupid and do not “get it”, or you are pretending to be stupid.
              You shoot off your mouth about “multiple failures” causing someone’s death, probably not expecting that someone might ask you to explain that accusation.
              You can’t back that statement up, so you bury your head in the sand, ignore material presented to you, and then try to lie your way out of the hole that you keep digging for yourself.
              You are a blowhard and a fool.

              1. Fluff is what you post. The issue was the question of a system failure, almost 4 hours to get her to a place where her life might be saved. Yes, that Natasha was an actress is part of the story. That she was on the bunny slope is also part of the story. But all of that is fluff when the real story is based on what could have been done to give Natasha the best chance of life. A delay of almost 4 hours tells us a system failure exists.

                You are unable to reason so you pile on facts that you read in different places. You also provide quotes and your own text while lying through your teeth about what those quotes mean and their context. By now you should have read once again Dr. Blacks statement which I posted recently and in the past in a more complete form and in context. You don’t respond to the real meaning of his words because you are a liar and can’t handle so much information. You continue to lie in the present either by commission or omission.

                Dr. Death instead of providing different scenarios that conflict with one another provide only one and tell us why it had to take 4 hours to get Natasha to a facility that could treat the underlying problem.

                1. They were trying to save her life at the first hospital, too. I have gone over and over the issues and dangers associated with her type of head injury, the importance of patient stabilization, and diagnosis by way of CAT Scan or MRI.
                  You had no understanding of some of the surrounding complications involving her injury, and appear to think that poking holes in her skull is all there is to it.
                  When surrounding factors are explained to you, you come back with an extremely stupid remark like “they were doing her nails”.
                  You are some piece of work, Dr. Blowhard.
                  Now I would like to help you top your previous level of spouting off in the 800 comment thread you helped construct before, but some of us have jobs to get back to.

                  1. I am sure they wanted to save her life, but did they have the facilities to do so? No.

                    Your next statement involves how a patient should be treated. You don’t have the slightest idea. Your intellect prevents you from prioritizing treatment options.

                    I recognize the major difficulties in a surgical remediation of an immediate life threatening condition. The choices in this type of event are.
                    1) Let the patient die
                    2)Try to help the patient and/or buy time.

                    Dr. Death’s choice: ‘let the patient die’.

                    You explained nothing of value because to you all things are of equal value making it impossible for you to prioritize. That is a problem with people that have a limited intellectual capacity.

                    I hope your job is not teaching and I hope you have a lot of supervision at a job that doesn’t involve problem solving.

              2. People made decisions at different stages in the response to Richardson’s injury.
                You are blaming those people as being responsible for “multiple failures” in how they handled her case.
                You’ve tried to cop out by saying you’re not blaming anyone, that it was a “system failure”.
                But assessments and decisions were made by people who had to proceed, at the time, without your gift of 20/20 hindsight.
                Your notion that Dr. Allan Blowhard somehow would have known better is delusional.

                1. “You are blaming those people as being responsible for “multiple failures” in how they handled her case.”

                  Dr. Death, you are too stupid. The individuals involved generally aren’t the one’s responsible for a system failure. Those that create the system are the ones you might want to blame. With the information discussed they were following directions and my guess is that most of the minor injuries needing a hospital type facility went to that hospital. Apparently they didn’t distinguish this type of critical injury from the minor ones. We don’t even know what type of training the paramedics had.

    3. Pertaining to the Natasha Richardson kerfuffle:

      For starters, the amount of time that elapsed was 3.5 hours, but “Allan” bumps it to 4 hours because it suits his purposes, one might guess.

      What kind of person alters the facts?

      The second ambulance arrived at Mont Tremblant at ~3:10 and Richardson arrived in Montreal at ~6:38.

      1. It was 3 hours and 40 minutes which is almost 4 hours. That has been stated many times.

        “What kind of person alters the facts?”

        You do and you are a liar as well.

        I have provided the times as provided apparently noted on the time sheets. From the time it became a priority 1 till it arrived at the hospital able to save her life 3 hours and 40 minutes or almost 4 hours had passed.

        You have confused yourself which probably doesn’t take much work.

        1. 3’30” or 3’40” but so sorry: You don’t get to round it to 4 hours.

          It’s wishful thinking on Allan’s part to believe that they were going to be able to “save her life” after the almost 2 hours and 30 minutes that went by, without any medical intervention, before the second ambulance arrived.

          You’re on a fool’s errand, Allan.

          1. I’ve been saying almost 4 hours over and over again, but you are a petty and pitiful human being.

            You don’t decide that medical intervention is useless though you are doing so here. That demonstrates what an absolute idiot you are.

            1. Allan – having been in an emergency room, that other 20 minutes is getting your insurance card, drawing blood, finding a bay, finding the doctors, initial evaluation, etc. I am going to give Allan the extra 20 minutes and remember, I am the pedant.

                    1. Anonymous – you guys? got into it and I followed it casually. However, my statement is not based on the 911 transcript.

                    2. It’s simple math that anonymous can’t accomplish or even take note of if presented to her, which it was. Almost 4 hours for a trip that could have been done in less than 85 minutes and probably that long a trip may have been avoided with a telephone call.

                  1. Mr Schulte and the other anonymous,
                    The tineline, the actual time from the fall at the ski resort to the time of her arrival in Montreal, is not really in dispute.
                    The first call for an ambulance was about 12:45 PM. So Natasha Richardson fell at some point before 12:45 PM.
                    The ambulance arrived about 1:00 PM but Richardson declined treatment. The paramedics just caught a glimpse of her and the call was cancelled.
                    At about 3PM, a second call was put in, reporting that she was feeling I’ll.
                    The paramedics came out again, evaluated her ( BP, pulse, probably medical history and details of the fall, etc). They started here on oxygen, probably stated an IV).
                    What is known from the transcripts when they were in route to the nearby hospital is that they thought she had a concussion.
                    I think they left the ski resort at about 3:30 PM and arrived at the hospital about 3:45 PM.
                    ( I’m not going to backtrack and try for exact times).
                    Since there are very few medical records from the first hospital, we know that she was given a CAT Scan.
                    That is a prerequisite prior to burr hole placement, but it is probably standard with a head injury is accompanied by other symptoms ( nausea, vomiting, etc).
                    The rate of her deterioration at that hospital is unknown. With a Glascow score of about 12 while in route and normal vital signs, she did not appear to be in serious trouble at that point ( in route).
                    She was at the first hospital until about 5:45 PM, at which point she was transferred to Montreal. She was at the Montreal hospital at about 6:40 PM.
                    There is no way of knowing the rate of her deterioration at the first hospital. Beyond the imaging, the standard procedure would include doing a lab workup to check for electrolyte imbalances, continud hyperventilation to reduce intracranial pressure, possibly administration of osmotic and anti-convulsant..
                    It’s more involved that “doing her nails”.
                    At some point in her roughly 2 hours at the first hospital, there was a decision made to transfer her to Montreal. That decision and other decisions were likely made in consulatation with specialists at the Montreal hospital.
                    A respiratory therapist and an RN were added to the transport team that took her to Montreal.
                    What appeared to be a minor fall not needing medical attention ( by Ms.Richardson at the time of the first call) then appeared to be a concussion 2-2 1/2 hours later.
                    A combination .of the CAT Scan results and her deterioration at the hospital showed that it was an epidural hematoma caused by a torn cerebral artery.
                    The debate here over the so-called “4 hour delay” is whether she should have immediately been taken to Montreal instead of one of the nearby hospital.
                    I don’t see how the first responders were supposed to immediately diagnose a torn artery absent a CAT Scan, or absent symptoms of more than a concussion.
                    That’s why she was taken to the closer hospital for what turned out to be “a rare catastrophic event” or “an usual case” by the specialists of have been quoted.
                    If you skip the preliminary exameby the paramedics, the CAT Scan, the patient stabilization and immediately race off to Montreal, she could have potentially arrived in Montreal a couple of hours earlier than the actual c. 6:45 PM she actually arrived there.
                    There are risks involved in taking that of action as well.
                    The accusation of “multiple failures” in her medical care are based on retrospective knowledge that she had a torn artery, rather than a concussion.
                    It intially appeared to be a concussion, and the expectation in hindsight that they should have immediately known it was more than a concussion is not realistic.

                    1. Anonymous – thanks for the timeline. Do we have any idea of the time between the original injury and calling the medics? And did she run into a tree or a rock?

                    2. Paul, we have been playing with this incident for a long time. Anonymous AKA Dr. Death has changed his scenario multiple times and his talk of her condition ranged from she was too far gone past the time limits that she was dead no matter what all the way to the other side that she had a simple concussion. He is therefore untrustworthy.

                      He provided a quote from a neurosurgeon to prove himself right but when I posted the complete question and answer it showed that the answer wasn’t pertinent to the question and only answered questions about what happened when the ambulance first came and she refused treatment. He continued to use it in his arguents despite the fact they didn’t pertain so that makes him a liar.

                      The clinical history was such that one had to strongly consider a bleed. If that was so she needed to be sent where they could so a surgical procedure even if temporary.just to provide her survival time.

                      They took her where they probably took all injuries even though they didn’t have the facilities to save her life if it were a bleed.. They knew from the clinical history she could be in bad trouble so she was considered a prorit Her Glascow score was not good 15/12.

                      They took her to a hospital that couldn’t do the lifesaving procedure and transferred her out to the trauma hospital. Because of the delay it took almost 4 hours to get to the trauma hospital when it would have taken (based on anonymouses numbers) less than 85 minutes. However they could have called to see if the procedure could be done closer which apparenly they didn’t do.

                      She died and the two anonymous’s are idiots.

                    3. It’s troublesome. Remember she seemed fine when they left. Then without further trauma her problems started and she deteriorated in the ambulance.That is an indication of a potentially bigger problem.

                    4. Allan – not to put too sharp a point on it, however the ambulance ride probably was not help. I went 1 1/2 miles in the ambulance and it was not a fun ride. I cannot imagine what hers was like.

                    5. Paul since she was losing consciousness while nuts like anonymous claim the paramedics had no way to know I don’t think much of the ride was uncomfortable for her.

                    6. Mr. Schulte,
                      Since the first call for an ambulance was made about 12:45 PM, we know that she fell at some point before that.
                      She evidently felt OK, declined medical service, and signed a waiver to that effect that the ski resort would require.
                      The second call, when she was not feeling well, was about 3 PM, with paramedics arriving about 3:15 PM.
                      Based on what they observed and probably in consultation with one of the nearby hospital, they transported her to St. Agathe, about 25 miles from the resort.
                      They reported a Glascow score of 12 and symptoms consistent with a concussion……that is not an “official diagnosis”, but based on their observations they relayed to hospital while in route that the patient seemed to have suffered a concussion.
                      The CAT Scan and her deteriorating condition at some point after admission to the hospital indicated a torn cerebral artery.
                      Arrangements were made to transfer her to Montreal, with addition medical specialists and equipment on board.
                      I don’t know the exact point that she was determined to be brain dead….that may have occured before, during, or after her tranfer Montreal.
                      At the point when she was put on life support and transferred from Montreal to New York, I think it was certain that she was brain dead.
                      It was said that the NY Hospital ( Lennox?) was a facility known for its work in organ donation ( harvesting).
                      Also, her husband, sister, and mother were some distance away, and keeping her on life support for a short time gave them an opportunity to say their final goodbyes.
                      Anyway, from the time of her fall to the time she reached Montreal, and likely moribund was probably about 6 1/2 hours.
                      From the time that that paramedics actually arrived after they were called back the second time, at about 3PM with an arrival at the ski result at c.3:15 PM, to the time she was in extremely critical condition on arrival in Montreal, was roughly 3 1/2 hours.
                      “Normal” driving time from the resort to the nearby hospital is about 30 minutes; “normal” driving time from the resort to Montreal is c.1hour, 40 minutes.
                      I have included “normal” to take into account that an ambulance could likely cut down substantially on “normal” time required for each trip.

                    7. Anoymous – what I am looking for now it the approximate time of her accident and what did it consist of, as well as the response time to get her off the mountain. From the timeline stated, she was already at the resort when the medics arrived. I would also like to know how qualified the medics were for diagnosing her initially.

                    8. Paul, surprisingly anonymous provided a syndrome, talk and die. Head injury –> patient appears OK –> patient condition deteriorates –> which leads to 2 scenarios.
                      1) a bleed left untreated long enough leads to death
                      2) immediate attantion can save the life of a person with such a bleed.

                      The rest is mostly garbage. It took almost 4 hours to get Richardson to a place where treatment could be offered.
                      Anonymous doesn’t have satisfactory reasoning ability so he places a lot of thoughts all together as if they are all equal in value. That hides the real issue so he can’t see it. He is only able to deal with small amounts of data at a time.

                    9. Mr. Schulte,.
                      She was a beginner taking lessons and fell on the Bunny Slope.
                      I didn’t hear anything about her head hitting a rock or a cookision with tree, but if the snow was heavily compacted it would hard been a hard surface.
                      It was roughly 2 1/2 hours, possibly a bit longer, from the time that she fell to the time when paramedics were called back.

                    10. Anonymous – other than the ski rack, there is usually nothing to run into around the Bunny Slope. And people fall all the time. So something about this fall made them call for back up. So, the lodge did their job. The woman refused treatment after seeing the medics.

                      Let’s add another 20 minutes from the time of the injury until the call to 911 or whatever it is in Canada. The ski instructor has to get her, evaluate her, decide she is done for the day, She has to take off her skis and boots and go inside where she is re-evaluated and they make the call. I think we can add 20 minutes.

  6. “There also needs to be a recognition that there are unknowns, like the absence of detailed medical records, that make it unwise to make arrogant assumptions.”

    Bingo.

    I would say “arrogant” — and irresponsible — “assumptions.”

    1. It appears that once again you are repeating yourself.

      Dr. Death, there are unknowns, but if one is trying to save a life rapidly being extinguished delaying the life saving treatment is stupid. In this case the time of life saving treatment was almost 4 hours when it could have been 85 minutes and perhaps a lot sooner.

      1. The paramedics were first to treat Richardson, and they did not find “a life rapidly being extinguished”.
        They found what appeared to be a woman who had suffered a concussion.
        It’s the decision to take a patient who was thought to have a concussion to a nearby hospital that is being questioned by the Monday Morning Quarterback here, who seems to assume that an epidural hematoma should have been the immediate disgnosis by first responders.
        Given that it was “an unusual case” and “a rare catastrophic event” as described by two specialists, I don’t how the paramedics and others can be faulted for not immediately racing off to Montreal, a distance 3 times as great as the nearby hospital were she was first taken.

        1. “they did not find “a life rapidly being extinguished”.”

          Prove it. Her Glasgow score was 12/15 that is already worrisome. Richardson proved you wrong. She is dead.

          “a woman who had suffered a concussion.”… And who was developing more and more symptoms with a Glasgow score that started out low and continued to fall.

          With that scenario there were two main possibilities.
          1) She would improve without surgery but a risk of survival existed.
          2) She would die without surgery.

          You choose to gamble with someone’s life on number one and she is dead.

          A subdural should have been a major consideration and that gets us to the choice of #1 or #2

          Just because a case is not common doesn’t mean it should not be treated in the best way possible.

          That you don’t see the problem is obvious. That is why you should never be in charge of anything important and that someone should always be supervising you. If you are a teacher as indicated earlier you should be monitored and told to inform someone else with more common sense if one of the students appeared ill.

          1. A Glascow Score in the range of 9 to 12 is consistent with a moderate injury.
            She was at 12 in route to the nearby hospital. The rate of her deterioration after that is not known.

            1. Think about it. If she suddenlhy started to deteriorate and the ambulane was called she is spiraling downward. They found her at a 12, not good. Somewhere along the line she died so her deterioration must have been noticeable while she was in transport or delayed at the hospital that couldn’t do the definitive treatment.

              1. Think. If you had diarrhea would you go to a toilet where you couldn’t get relief and wait almost 4 hours or would you go to the closest one?

              2. It’s easy for a person with 20/20 hindsight to claim that a Glascow score of 12 is “worrisome” when you know retrospectively that the score would subsequently drop and what the CAT Scan would reveal.
                She was conscience but disoriented in the ambulance and on arrival. There is no public information about the Glascow score at different intervals after she was admitted.

                1. What use is the score if one has to use hindsight to know what it means?

                  It is this simple complexity that gets you in trouble because your ability to reason is limited. If the score was 15 that would be a positive indication. At twelve it is worrisome whether before the fact or after the fact.

                  1. You would be the expert on the use of hindsight, Dr. Blowhard. The actual medical response involved people having to make decisions at the time, based on the information they had at the time.
                    Your gig is second guessing with the benefit of hindsight. Your entire attempt to show “multiple failures” in the medical teams response to her injuries is based on 20/20 hindsight.

                    1. Dr Death, even the yapping dog that follows your footsteps came up with the ‘talk and die syndrome’ which explains a lot to everyone but idiots.

                      Glascow scores are predictors not a hindsight tool. No second guessing with hindsight is needed in this discussion which is about system failures. Almost 4 hours to get her to a place for definitive treatment is a system failure.

              3. Is that what the paramedics said? That she was “spiraling downward”? Did you bother to read the transcript of their radio transmissions?
                Or did you just decide to make that up without reading what they reported?
                Which was a probable concussion and a Glascow Score consistent with a mild-to-moderate head injury. If you need to continue lying your way out of the corner you painted yourself into, have at it. It seems to come naturally to you, and you probably have had a lot of practice trying to lie and BS your way through arguments you intiated.
                Trying to run this thread up to about 800 comments in the process? You seem to be to coholder of the record for the column that generated hundreds of comments by you, and stretched those out that over a period of weeks.

                1. “Is that what the paramedics said? That she was “spiraling downward”?

                  No they said she was in great spirits when she finally arrived after the almost 4 hour trip despite the fact that she was finally declared brain dead. …And I also understand that you believe her Glascow Score rose to 15/15 after that almost 4 hour period.

                  As far as the number of comments we wouldn’t have needed more than one if you could figure out how to get out of a paper bag.

  7. ” Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun.” -Dr. Dexter Sun, NY Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell

    “Why Natasha Richardson Ended Up Dead: A Neurologist Explains”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-natasha-richardson-en_b_176665

    How can it be possible for a healthy 45 year-old woman to take a spill on a “bunny hill” and end up brain dead within the day?

    That’s the question that I posed to neurologist Dr. Dexter Sun, who practices at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell in New York City. First of all, rest assured he said: this is a highly unusual case. Normally, a tragedy like this occurs only after a very heavy impact accident, says Dr. Sun.

    With that said, Dr. Sun explained that there are three particular possibilities that could account for Natasha Richardson’s state:

    1. “She may have a fairly rare underlying hematology condition called hypocoagulation, in which she lacks a blood clotting factor,” says Dr.Sun. This could be a genetic factor which had gone unnoticed throughout her life until now. When the clotting factor is missing, a minor bleed can become a hemorrhage.

    2. It’s possible that Natasha could have been taking a blood thinner like coumadin, for another medical condition, that would have made it much more likely for her to bleed after any head injury, according to Dr. Sun.

    3. Finally, and most likely, she did have a harder spill than what has been reported. Sometimes when this happens “you can have a high level cervical spine fracture or a fracture at the base of the skull,” says Dr.Sun. When this occurs, and the injured person continues to move around as Natasha did — not realizing that she was seriously hurt — the spine can touch the brain stem and cause a severe brain injury.

    A high impact fall on the head can also cause three different types of bleeding within the brain: 1) an intracranial hemorrhage, which begins as a microscopic rupture of a blood vessel deep within the brain, 2) a subdural hematoma, which is a bleed that occurs in the dura, which is the outer layer of the brain, or 3) an epidural hematoma, which is a hemorrhage, that takes place between the outer skull and the dura.*

    As for why Natasha initially seemed perfectly fine after her spill, apparently the hemorrhage can begin in one small spot in the brain and then grow in intensity.

    All of these types of bleeding and the cervical spine fracture, result in dramatic swelling of the brain and pressure in the skull, which also pushes down dangerously on the brain stem, which is the center of life, according to Dr. Sun.

    Big question: Was there ever a chance to save Natasha Richardson’s life? If she hadn’t insisted that she was fine and walked back to her room, could prompt medical treatment have made a difference?

    Since initially there was no indication that Natasha’s life was in danger, it’s unlikely that she could have been saved. She would have needed to be rushed into the hospital and into a CT scan in a matter of minutes, according to Dr. Sun.

    “If she had gone to the hospital and a CT scan indicated that there was bleeding, her skull would have been opened to relieve pressure, and she would have been given medication to relieve the pressure in her brain,” he says.

    Only then, would there have been a chance that she could pull through.

    Tragic.

    1. I take note that again and again Dr. Death pulls some other partial statement out of the hat. The last time that statement was out of context and had nothing to do with with Natasha’s care following the ambulance leaving because she felt OK.Dr. Death lied through his teeth.

      What can we learn from this report:
      1) We need a more exact statement from Dr. Sun with him being asked specific questions as to what the standard of care should be when the ambulance arrived and took her for treatment. He wouldn’t have signed her death certificate in advance as Dr. Death is ready to say.
      2) Getting to the pertinent question regarding this discussion. Dr. Sun said “If she had gone to the hospital and a CT scan indicated that there was bleeding, her skull would have been opened to relieve pressure, and she would have been given medication to relieve the pressure in her brain,”

      Take note how this statement says to save the life of any patient with this condition requires surgical remediation. Taking her to a place where surgery could not be offered leading to a delay in care for almost 4 hours from less than 85 minutes is inappropriate. Looking for the fastest way possible for the procedure to be done was the most appropriate and in some cases has not been done by neurosurgeons and before CT scans was done without those images.

      1. We have CAT Scans now, and we use them.
        As I mentioned earlier, surgeries were done before the widespread useage of X-Rays over a century ago.
        That does not mean that you don’t use the best available imaging technology in making a diagnosis, and a definitive diagnosis is necessary before you start drilling holes through someone’s skull.
        That’s why “lack of imaging” was mentioned as a contraindication to burr hole surgery, and Allan continues to brush that aside.
        He “knows” better.

        1. One uses the best available medical equipment based on the clinical situation. If one has to choose between running out of time and having a dead patient or a patient that is operated on with a chance to live one takes the chance.

          If imaging isn’t available one uses the best skills they have.

          Dr. Death, I really think all this is above your paygrade.

                1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five 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-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, you are in no position to give advice.

            1. Actually, Benson, there are at least 3 that have been involved in this discussion.
              Allan initiated it with his accusation of multiple failures in the medical response to Natasha Richard’s injury.
              He wants the first word on this and the last word. I have considered giving it to him, and will do so when you deliver the citations you owe to Mr. Schulte to end that exchange.

              1. The problem anonymous is that I made an appropriate comment and you were stupid and involved yourself in lies to prove yourself correct. Neither have you produced a singular cogent argument. One of you is mostly a dog barking at her masters heals. Both of you have sh.t in your pants and stink because it takes you 4 hours to get to a toilet in an emergency when that toilet can be found much quicker.

    2. “A highly unusual case”. – Dr. Sun
      “A rare catastrophic event”- Dr. Keith Black
      These statements by neurosurgeons are not “out of context”.
      They are fair summaries of the conclusions of both specialists.
      Under those circumstances and current guidelines, it is not assumed that every TBI involves intracranial bleeding.
      One can take a “highly unusual case or rare catastrophic event” and claim, in hindsight, that her case was mishandled.
      The suggestion is that that neurosurgeons need to called in immediately in TBI cases where disorientation is present.
      It is not an indication of “multiple failures” to follow established medical guidelines in a particular case.

      1. “A highly unusual case”.

        Unfortunately, the idea that this was an unusual case has nothing to do with the problem that it took almost 4 hours to get the patient to the proper facility when it could have taken less than 85 minutes and possibly substantially less if a telephone was used.

    1. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

      That is one thing you won’t have to worry about. You don’t enough knowledge to matter.

      On the other hand, I know what I am talking about and there is nothing you have said that wasn’t a lie that disproved anything I said.

  8. It’s abundantly clear that Allan is neither a doctor nor a medical professional.

    Natasha Richardson refused treatment, not just once, but twice. In doing so, she sealed her fate. It’s all very sad, but these are the facts.

    There was a 30-90 minute treatment window after symptoms began. During this time, a burr-hole or craniotomy might have saved her, but — again — she refused transport and treatment.

    After this treatment window had passed, all bets were off — and it passed at just about the same time that the second ambulance arrived. (She fell at ~12:45, symptoms began at 1:45, and the second ambulance arrived at 3:09.) After 90 minutes, deterioration would have been rapid.

    So while Allan is yammering about the time that it took to get her to Montreal, it was pretty much over by the time the second ambulance arrived at Mont Tremblant, in spite of what Allan wants to believe.

    1. Dr. Death is now changing his story to ” it was pretty much over by the time the second ambulance arrived” Was it? What was the Glasgow score? Oh Damn, you are saying about the Glasgow score. It was reported but you forgot. 12/15 is not all over and average times of survival are averages and do not tell us what will happen in a specific patient.

      You don’t seem able to make a cogent and consistent argument built on the facts that are known. That is why you like to lie a lot so that you can add facts that don’t exist. You are having a really bad time and it is taking a toll on your ego.

        1. Don’t know your point. Your citation assumes surgery to save the life. The first hospital couldn’t do the surgery. Based on your numbers she could have arrived at the treating hospital in less than 85 minutes instead of 220 minutes.

          Suddenly you are concerned with her declining mental status which made more imperative to treat sooner rather than later.

          You fail again.

          1. “the treating hospital”. She was treated and diagnosed at the first hospital.
            Contrary to an idiotic statement Allan made earlier, they were not just “doing her nails” at the first hospital.

            1. They might have well as been doing her nails since she required definitive treatment that they didn’t offer. If they could have offered the treatment she might have been alive today.

              It’s all in the timeline.

  9. Related to the protracted “discussion” downstream about Natasha Richardson, and Allan’s apparent obsession that she would be alive and well today if only someone had drilled a burr hole:

    “What is an epidural hematoma?”

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

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

    Allan can’t see the forest for the trees, at this point. He is determined to be right and anyone who points to other possible outcomes is ‘stupid’ and/or ‘lying.’

      1. Tell me why you think I have tunnel vision. What do you have to add? Do you think your barking at a mirror demonstrates intelligence?

        1. Thank goodness there actual medical professionals directing her care — medical professionals with access to information that has not, to date, been released.

          Contrary to what Allan wants to believe, there were not “multiple failures”…

          1. You keep repeating yourself over and over again even duplicating the posts.

            I’ll repeat my answer:

            Just under 4 hours to get a priority one patient to a facility able to treat that patient. That is a failure. Taking a time sensitive patient to a facility unable to treat is another failure. Not trying to locate a closer facility where the patient is able to be treated is a third failure.

            1. Time to give it up, Allan. The horse is dead.

              Natasha Richardson’s real treatment window expired at approximately the same time that the second ambulance arrived at Mont Tremblant. (She had 30-90 minutes after symptoms began and those symptoms appeared approximately an hour after her fall. The fall was around 12:45 and her symptoms started at approximately 1:45 PM. The second ambulance arrived at 3:09, I believe. Time was up and she declined rapidly.

              Beyond that, our friends in Quebec did everything they could to try to save her life. It just wasn’t possible, in spite of your deep-seated need for another outcome.

              Get her medical records, have a little sit-down with those who rendered aid and treatment –doing the best they could, when it was already too late — and then get back to us.

              I understand that your desire to try to save her, but it just wasn’t possible — in spite of all your hard work, here.

              Burr-hole surgery might have helped her, if it had been done before 3 PM on the day of her fall. After that time? I’m afraid not.

    1. There is no guarantee that any critically ill patient will survive or have a valued life.

      The only question is whether or not we let all critically ill patients die even if we can save some of them.

      Dr. Death seems to believe that death is what all people want and he doesn’t care what anyone else has to say on the matter, even the patient. He’s a “killer” by nature and a liar in his everyday life.

      1. Thank goodness there actual medical professionals directing her care — medical professionals with access to information that has not, to date, been released.

        Contrary to what Allan wants to believe, there were not “multiple failures”…

        1. Just under 4 hours to get a priority one patient to a facility able to treat that patient. That is a failure. Taking a time sensitive patient to a facility unable to treat is another failure. Not trying to locate a closer facility where the patient is able to be treated is a third failure.

          1. “Not trying to locate a closer facility where the patient is able to be treated is a third failure.”

            And just where would that have been, Dr. Blowhard?

            So Allan is without access to Natasha Richardson’s medical record, medical history, and input from medical professionals involved in her care that day…and, yet, he’s determined that there were “multiple failures.”

            1. What you are saying is that there are no neurosurgeons within ~4 hours travel time. That is possible but I think not probable. Did you bother to check? I think you earlier said the ambulance travelled at 85 mph. That is a 340 mile radius.

              Just because you lack the ability to analyze things doesn’t mean no one else can. Is that too hard for you to swallow?

                1. “You’re out of your depth”

                  Tell us where? You can’t because you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

              1. I posted to normal travel time to the nearby hospital where Richardson was intially taken ( c.30 minutes) v the normal travel time ( c. 1 hour, 40 minutes) to Montreal.
                The St. Agathe hospital, the first one, is about 35 miles from the ski resort.
                The transfer to Montreal was 35 miles shorter from St. Agathe than from the ski resort, since it is on the way to Montreal.

                1. Based on your times and knowing that one might require surgical treatment quickly the objective was to get the patient to the operating room as quickly as possible.

                  “the normal travel time ( c. 1 hour, 40 minutes) to Montreal.” plus the ten minutes you said it took for the ambulance to get to Richardson is 110 minutes. You stated the ambulance travelled at 85 mph considerably higher than normal travel time so they may have made it a lot faster than 1 hour and 40 minutes. Added together that is 110 minutes. Since they were going at 85mph that would make the actual time considerably less than the 110 minutes approaching your assumed number of 90 minutes.

                  If one took all your numbers and did the calculations the actual time span to get her to Monteal would have been less than 75 minutes plus the ten minutes to get the ambulance to her taking it to 85 minutes within the time span for treatment based on your averages (a wrong assumption).

                  You fail. Everyway one looks at it there was a system failure. You stink at math. I’m not saying your numbers were correct, only providing what the calculations of your numbers show.

                  1. If you assume that every head injury requires an immediate transfer to a city with a major trauma center, then we can a constant stream of sirens blaring on the streets and highways, and ERs clogged with those who have concussions.
                    It has been pointed out that Richardson was initially thought to have suffered a concussion. A combination of the CAT Scan and her symptoms made it known , AT THAT POINT, that she had an epidural hematoma.
                    Dr. Allan Blowhard, with 20/20 hindsight, is saying that “they should have known” immediately that it was a hematoma rather than a concussion.
                    Not all medical professionals can be expected to have Dr. Blowhard’s incredible, immediate diagnostic skills.

                    1. Dr. Death, her clinical history and her deteriorating mental status made her a critically ill patient and they knew that when the ambulance was made a priority 1.

                      One doesn’t require great intelligence or knowledge to recognize these things. That you don’t recognize them in the least even after being fed so much data tells us that you were shortchanged when it came to intelligence.

        2. To the other Anonymous,
          Good luck trying to explain anything to a pompous ass like Allan, who has perfect 20/20 hindsight and pretends to have knowledge he does not have.
          I posted a fairly comprehensive summary of the known events related to the Richardson case this morning.
          As I noted, an average high school biology student would be able to grasp the necessity to properly diagnose and stabilize a patient under those known circumstances.
          Dr. Blowhard will have none of it, because a self-proclaimed expert like him has an inflated and sensitive ego.
          It’s up to you how much time you want to waste replying to a fool like Dr. Allan Blowhard.

          1. “It’s up to you how much time you want to waste replying to a fool like Dr. Allan Blowhard.”

            Right back atcha, sister. : )

            1. This sums things up nicely:

              “Anonymous says:September 8, 2019 at 2:07 AM

              To the other Anonymous,

              I thought that Allan was merely stupid and a blowhard.
              I should have picked up on it earlier that he is also off his rocker.
              But as someone pointed out earlier, maybe his obsessive commenting here on any and all subjects means that he can’t do as much damage elsewhere.”

              1. It takes two to play this type of game so whatever you are throwing at me comes right back at you.

                Both of you can’t seem to get the facts straight so both of you resort to a lot of verbiage that has nothing to do with the discussion. That verbiage doesn’t help your case and only proves your ignorance.

          2. You posted cr-p and never addressed the almost 4 hour time period from the Priority 1 to arrival at the hospital able to treat. You did not bother with considering other hospitals that were closer and you didn’t consider the wasted time at hospital one. You lie and you make things up. You pretend your high school biology course taught you enough, but it didn’t teach you how to think.

            You are a loser.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five 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-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – has waving the civility rule ever worked for you? Asking for a friend.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five 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-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – if you can prove any one of these is a lie, I will remove that one.

            1. Hardly. I recall the exchange. You made a fanciful cite from the OED and Paul called you in it. You’ve been running away like a school girl ever since. Put up or … you know.

              1. mespo – the OED was the starting salvo, however he continued to not cite his sources, hence the length a fulsomeness of my post. 🙂 And he still hasn’t properly cited the OED one from almost 11 months ago. There is just no excuse (except dementia) for such poor scholarship.

      1. Is there anything in the civility rules that relieves Benson of his obligation to provide Mr. Schulte with the citations thar he owes him?

        1. Anonymous – as far as I know, Benson has owed me citations for over 10 months and there is nothing in the civility rules that prevents him from supplying them to me.

        2. I owe Paul C Schulte precisely nothing. He just made that up.

          Demonstrates considerable rigidity. With all due respect of course.

          1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five 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-three weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, I would posit that you are the rigid one in refusing to supply me with my citations.

    1. When Allan calls others ignorant and stupid and liars and not healthy, those are not ad hominems.
      When others return to the favor to Allan by responding in kind, THOSE are ad hominems and Allan gets his panties in a wad.

      1. When you are called stupid I think that is more a statement of fact. The reason you would be called stupid is because all you do is use ad hominens without any substance attached. Recently you provided a time line that after all this time a smart person wouldn’t have used so what would you call that smart person who acted like you. One would have to call him stupid or lie and say he was smart.

  10. Dr. Death. We know that the life of the patient means little to you. That is why you make no attempt to shorten the 4 hour delay. You have earned your title.

    1. Allan says:September 8, 2019 at 12:39 AM

      “Dr. Death. We know that the life of the patient means little to you. That is why you make no attempt to shorten the 4 hour delay. You have earned your title.”

      So says a guy — “Allan” — who is clearly a fool.

        1. “There wasn’t a “4 hour delay,” Allan.”

          Almost 4 hours, anonymous. You can tell us the timeline from 2:59 the time the Priority 1 was determined to 6:38 the time the ambulance finally arrived at Hospital du Sacre-Coeur. That is almost 4 hours.

          You guys are very dense.

          1. I bowed out of this exchange late Monday night, although maybe one or two comments I made were time-stamped early Tuesday morning. (EDT).
            Allan has had numerous things explained to him, in terms that an average high school biology student could understand, about the medical response to Natasha Richardson’s fall.
            Dr. Blowhard pretends to “know” that the established procedures followed on her case were improper. Everything presented about the importance of imagining, patient stabilization, etc. has been met by a “wrong wrong wrong” reply from Dr. Allan Blowhard. The quote from a prominent neurosurgeon that everything was handled appropriately is dismissed by Allan as “out of context” and a lie. Then Allan is stupid enough to post the entire quote, which teaches the same conclusion, and claim that what the neurosurgeon said is not what the nuerosurgeon said.
            There is no disagreement that time is of the essence in response to treating an epidural or subdural hematoma.I posted material listing contraindications to drilling burr holes; lack of i
            “imaging” is one. That is, you scan the patient to get a definitive diagnosis before drilling holes in the skull. The fact that some ancient societies performed this as a ritual to release evil spirits, the fact that the procedure was done before CAT Scans, is neither here nor there. We generally have access to CAT Scans and MRIs in modern medicine, and you use the technology of the day to get the best imagining for dianosis.
            Another element of treatment is patient stabilization before surgery. I posted a link to a detailed article on a study of outcomes involving patients with electrolyte imbalances.Having seem a member of my immediate family go into grand mall seizures and lose consciousness due to hyponatremia, I have a fair understanding of why that particular electrolyte imbalance ( low sodium) can be extremely dangerous.
            Rich oxygen supply helps reduce intracranial pressure, which is why Richardson was immediately places on oxygen. The paramedics likely attempted to get a medical history, details of her fail which happened 2 or 3 hours earlier, the progression of her symptoms, etc.
            They took here to one of the nearest available hospitals for imaging and further stabilization.They were in touch with the hospital at the ski resort and in transit. Their immediate impressions was that Richardson suffered a concussion, and there is nothing in her symptoms at that point that indicated otherwise. Anyone interested can find and review the paramedics radio transmissions.
            Those transmissions are one piece of her medical condition at that point in time that; there are no detailed public records of the treatment at the hospitals, but to dismiss the medical teams response as equivilant to “donig her nails” or determining that she was not in labor is sheer stupidity.
            It was Dr. Blowhard’s way, with 20/20 hindsight, of claiming “they should have known” it was an epidural hematoma right away. Drill hoes holes in her skull without imaging of stabilization. Dr. Blowhard has claimed that her treatment was unduly delayed 2 hours, or 3 hour, or nearly 4 hours at various points in his comments. Lacking detailed medical records, we don’t know the exact nature of her treatment or the timeline at the Sant Agathe hospital ( the first one she was at).
            Everything that Allan recommends presupposes that responders and MDs could immediately conclude that Richardson had a hematoma rather than a concussion and proceed with burr hole placement hours sooner. Proper diagnosis is essential, and you don’t immediately have that in real time as events are unfold in. It’s much easier to come by with 20/20 hindsight.
            If Richardson had immediately been taken to Montreal ( rather than a much closer facility) and died in route die to hyponatremia or other medical issues, 20/20 hindsight could be used to claim that her chances would have improved had she reached a hospital in time to stabilize her.
            I’m not trying to convince Allan of anything, because Allan’s “I am always right” mentality and will ignorance prevent that. But this was a high profile case, and an ignorant Monday Morning Quaterback like Dr. Allan Blowhard should not get a pass on making unsubstantiated claims of “multiple failures ” in the medical response to Richardson’s injuries.
            But Allan has a second home here, and this type of forum is a great place for him to show how brilliant he thinks he is.

            1. To Anonymous @ 1:33 PM:

              All true.

              I think we both ‘bowed out’ at about the same time the other night. Thanks for taking the time to set the record straight. Someone needs to counter Allan’s ridiculous and irresponsible claims.

            2. “The quote from a prominent neurosurgeon that everything was handled appropriately is dismissed by Allan as “out of context” and a lie.”

              Absolutely. You lied. You quoted out of context. I provided the entire quote which demonstrated that the prominent neurosurgeon was only talking about the refusal of treatment by Richardson the first time and was not talking about the almost 4 hour delay. That doesn’t matter to you because you are a liar. I even quoted the question asked. But you took that all out of context. Why? Because you are a liar.

              With everything you have written you have yet to deal with the almost 4 hours to get the patient to a place where the time clock could be stopped. They didn’t and she died but you continue to lie and say all sorts of things to hide an ignorant streak that seldom leads to so many lies in a row.

              If you had actually read what you provided you would glean from the report that time is the essential factor. That you didn’t despite being shown over and over again is just another manifestation of your inability to tell the truth.

              Imaging does no good if the needed surgical procedure is not done in time. You can’t see that because intellectually you are a dwarf. You feel that you can use words to get around the problem of the almost 4 hours before getting the patient to the operating table which if possible was the only thing that could save her life.

              You talk about diagnosis and stabilization of the patient but you leave out the life saving treatment. One has to wonder how your mind works or if it works at all. What stabilization could not have been done in the ambulance or at the hospital that instead of delaying treatment could do it. Telephones exist to find the closest hospital that has the ability to treat. It is is worthless in this case to find the hospital that can’t treat.

              I have provided the exact times over and over again despite the fact that you say differently. That only points to the fact that you are a liar and have no intention of ever being truthful.

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

                Ah but, according to Allan, if only someone had drilled a burr hole several hours after hours Natasha’s accident at 12:45 PM. All would be well, if Allan had been directing her care. Yeah. Only in Allan’s dreams.

                “What is an epidural hematoma?”

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

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

                Allan doesn’t have access to her medical records or her history, and no additional information has been provided by the doctors who treated her at the first hospital in Sainte Agathe. There is no information from the ambulance crew/s, either.

                Allan has tunnel vision, at this point. He is determined to be right and anyone who points to other possible outcomes is ‘stupid’ and/or ‘lying.’

                1. You are lying. We have enough knowledge to know that it took a priority 1 call almost 4 hours to get a dying patient to the place that could do the necessary procedures. You have no answer for the time line so you shift to arguing that she might have permanent brain damage. That is possible with a lot of medical problems that are treated.

                  Are you actually suggesting that we do not treat critically ill patients?

                  What type of nut are you?

                  1. I’m not shifting… I posted this long ago:

                    “If Natasha Richardson had received prompt medical attention, resulting in an accurate diagnosis of her condition and prompt drainage of the clot, might the outcome have been different? Obviously, we’ll never know. Just remember, it’s possible that even if everything had gone perfectly, including immediate diagnosis and treatment, she might have survived, been left severely brain damaged, and occupied a bed in a nursing home for the rest of her life, unable to walk, talk or feed herself, a mere shadow of the vibrant and talented human being that she once was.” -Dr. Gary Benfield

                    “Are you actually suggesting that we do not treat critically ill patients?”

                    Of course not. NR was treated, though not by Dr. Allan Blowhard.

                    “What type of nut are you?”

                    You’re projecting again, Allan.

                    1. “I’m not shifting… I posted this long ago:”

                      You posted lots of different things including a whole bunch of lies but you haven’t been able to incorporate them into a cogent story that makes sense where parts don’t conflict with one another. On the one hand it was too late to treat. On the other hand she needed a CT scan to evaluate her treatment. On another hand she needed stabilzation but that was placed ahead of definitive treatment. Then you suggested she wasn’t worth saving. On and on you go with bits and pieces totally disorganized and refusing to deal with the almost 4 hour time.

                      You really are showing yourself off in a very foolish fashion and demonstrating that you have no ability to deal with complex events.

                    2. Dr. Blowhard spouts more nonsense.

                      Mentioning burr hole surgery (in the 911 thread) was fine because it’s saved many lives but, given Natasha R’s refusals (not just one refusal, but two), it wasn’t going to save HER life.

  11. “The so-called delay caused by performing the CAT Scan is seperate, phony complaint by Dr. Blowhard”

    What you miss in your ignorance is that the CT scan could have been done at the hospital where the procedure could be done. That is where stabilization could have done as well if any were needed. The most important stabilization was stabilization of her brain function which was deteriorating because of increased pressure from a bleed.

    What you and Dr. Death are doing is separating the only thing that might have saved her life from other things normally done. In other words you think that while her mental status falls into the toilet everything should be put on hold until the blood is drawn, the tests come back and the patient’s electrolytes are stabilized if they needed it in the first place.Perhaps you want her checked in as well and wait for a family member to arrive to sign all the forms and provide you with history as well. The order of things is based on the seriousness of things so all of that might be done pretty much at the same time the patient is being treated.

    I guess you and Dr. Death go out to a bar to party after everything is done in the order you like without concern that the patient diedbecause of the delays you caused..

    1. As I said, I will not try to convince Dr. Allan Blowhard of anything.The CAT Scan and diagnosis and stabilization was done at one of the closest available hospital, and the transit time to that hospital was far less than a transfer to Montreal.
      If you could magically determine and diagnose the nature of Richardson’s injuries and initially skip scanning and stabilization, sure you could have drilled holes in her skull earlier, if she was still alive by the time she reached Montreal.
      The fact is that a proper medical response involved a proper diagnosis ASAP, and that was available at the nearby hospital. The chances of patient stabilization are also greater when transport time is reduced.
      Finally, it’s important to know the nature of the injury ASAP. The vast majority of the time, Richardson’s injury and the symptoms she intially presented woyld have been consistent with a concussion.
      I will repeat that you do not automatically transfer patients with head injuries to major trauma centers in distant hospitals. You get a diagnosis as soon as is reasonably possible and you stabilize the patient.

      1. “As I said, I will not try to convince…”

        The only person you are trying to convince is yourself. If you had facts you would deal with the almost 4 hours that it took for a priority 1 to arrive at a hospital capable of doing the life saving procedure under discussion. Dr. Death believes that prior to the CT scan this type of procedure was never done. He actually doesn’t really believe that but he lies a lot.

        “Finally, it’s important to know the nature of the injury ASAP. The vast majority of the time, Richardson’s injury and the symptoms she intially presented woyld have been consistent with a concussion.”

        The deteriorated mental status made her a priority 1 for a reason and her status continued to deteriorate over the almost 4 hours it took to get her to a place that could do the life saving procedure. Unfortunately she was already brain dead. Dr. Death believes all head injuries need to be treated the same despite their mental status. That is one system failure. Treating a dying patient as a simple head injury where the patient will not require surgery. While Dr. Death was stabilizing the patient her mental status was deteriorating. Dr. Death in a critical situation doesn’t use his brain rather he twiddles his toes and then lies through his teeth.

  12. Turley: Trump’s initial misstatement over Alabama was not particularly serious.

    That is incorrect at best. Trump’s statement about hitting Alabama was correct. The chart that he initially displayed did not show the 4-5 day forecast track which included Alabama. Obviously his staff erred in not giving him an accurate chart and subsequently the error was corrected with the drawn line. It is nonsensical to refer to making this correction, in Turley’s terms, as digging a hole. Correcting an error quickly is transparency not, in Turley’s terms, digging a hole.

    After this much time, Turley should have done enough research to realize that the statement he quotes by John Roberts, Fox News, was incorrect. Specifically, contrary to Roberts statement that the drawn line was not part of the official forecast. It was as shown by the NOAA’s charts and this notice from NOAA:

    From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories #15 through #41

    https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa
    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=5day_cone_with_line
    nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120

    1. olesmithy,

      You might not have be aware but this web blog only permits two hyperlinks per comment. In the above case I delinked one of your sources so that it may post.

      If you wish to have the readership review more than two links, this may be accomplished by using multiple comments of two hyperlinks each.

    2. NOAA was bullied into making this statement. The FL water district projection map that Trump displayed as support, and which was dated when Dorian was far out to sea, also showed Dorian crossing FL and entering the Gulf of Mexico. Should the Gulf states have been warned that they were in danger? Should tropical storm or hurricane warnings have been issued/ No, because there was never any serious risk to them any more than to Alabama, which became increasingly clear as time when on. When Trump said Alabamans were at risk, there was clearly NO risk, as the Birmingham NOAA Office made clear when it corrected Trump. In fact, were any warnings issued to Alabama? No. But, he can’t let it go, because he can never be wrong or apologize.

  13. Dr Death writes: “Surgeries were done before x-rays, too, you moron. That does not mean that it’s a good idea to conduct surgeries in the modern era without imaging.”

    No one said otherwise but reading comprehensiion doesn’t seem to be your strong suit anonymous. Proper procedure is to get the patient to the right place in the right time frame. You don’t take a cardiac patient to birthing center when he is having a heart attack. You take him to the place where he can be treated for his disease. In dire emergencies you don’t extend the time from pick up to hospital io 4 hours if it can be done sooner.

    Dr. Death is more concerned with not making waves and pretending a 4 hour wait so that Natasha ended up dead is a good thing. No Dr. Death it isn’t a good thing and killing the patient because the patient might end up with morbidity is not a good idea either. You have some wierd ideas.

    I suggest you go back and read the earliest postings because you don’t see to know what was said.

    1. Look, stupid, the important question assessing the kind if damage that the fall inflicted.
      As assinine remark about taking her to a birthing center or distinguishing a head injury from pregnancy ( as you did earlier) is not the question.
      Making thise distinctions may be the limits of Dr. Blowhard’s diagnostic capabilities, but those who treated her initially had to make a more refined diagnosis.
      Virtually everything that you have said, dummy, flies in the face of recommended procedures in evaluating and treating head trauma.
      I’ll once again make the recommendation that you address the next medical convention of neurosurgeons so that you can spout off to them, and tell them that there guidelines are all wrong, and that you know better.
      What a moron.

      1. Allan clearly lacks the fundamental capacity and medical background to be able to properly analyze what transpired with Natasha Richardson. God only knows what he’s trying to prove here, as he’s all over the map, tripping over his thoughts and unable to articulate a coherent argument.

        1. To the other anonymous,
          Allan is trying to prove his infallibility. There was a glimmer of hope for him when he modified his initial accusation of “multiple failures” to the questions of “what if”.
          Then he went back to form, going to ridiculous lengths to defend an indefensible position.

                1. Diane, you don’t have the slightest understanding of the discussion but when you tell us how things should be done and why the almost 4 hours couldn’t be shortened I’ll listen. Until then you are nothing more than a brainless twit that is lonely and can’t find a companion. Did your gerbil leave home?

                  1. Allan clearly lacks the fundamental capacity and medical background to be able to properly analyze what transpired with Natasha Richardson, as noted earlier.

                    Without the patient’s medical record and a complete timeline, which would include **everything** that transpired from the time the second ambulance arrived and Natasha Richardson’s arrival in Montreal, it’s impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. Input from her family and all of those who participated in her care would be an important, as well.

                    But old Allan has a bee up his a$$ and either can’t — or won’t –recognize and/or admit that he is missing critical and necessary information.

                    1. You are clearly not very bright. We know that time was the essence and taking her to two hospitals wasted time as proven by her arriving to the second hospital brain dead. What more information do you need and how would you handle that information?

                2. To the other Anonymous,
                  I thought that Allan was merely stupid and a blowhard.
                  I should have picked up on it earlier that he is also off his rocker.
                  But as someone pointed out earlier, maybe his obsessive commenting here on any and all subjects means that he can’t do as much damage elsewhere.

                  1. Diane, since you claim Have an obsessive amount of postings and they are replies to you that means you have obsessive amounts of postings. I don’t care , but you do so that makes you a sicko..

                    1. This has all the makings of a relationship. How cute Dr. Death and Diane, both liars and both intellectually challenged.

                  2. “I should have picked up on it earlier that he is also off his rocker.”

                    And even more evidence of that @ 2:10 AM

                    He’s a head-case, to be sure.

                  3. Allan is so obsessive that he’s carried this over into another thread:

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2019/09/10/not-based-on-science-chief-noaa-rebukes-trump-as-ig-investigates-allegations-of-political-pressure-to-reverse-forecast-that-contradicted-trump/comment-page-1/#comment-1880764

                    “Allan says:September 11, 2019 at 9:17 PM

                    It is nice to know that Dr. Death has been enlightened because up to now he has demonstrated a nihilistic streak even saying that maybe Richardson shouldn’t be kept alive. Maybe he felt she didn’t have any more of a purpose in life than he.”

                    1. The comment was placed exactly where I wished it to be placed. Anonymous indicated that anonymous had “purpose in our life” before the response of DSS. That mirrored a comment on the other thread.

                      Talking about obsessive, you keep following me around saying very little while bar.king alot.

          1. Dr. Death, you have said nothing using a lot of words. I am only trying to prove that reducing the time it takes to be treated in Natasha’s case improves her chance of survival. You are making up stories because it is embarrassing to you that I took your proof and proved you lied. I even provided the entire statement of Dr. Black in context along with the question asked. Even after being revealed as a liar you continued to lie but finally stopped ilying about black but have latched onto other mistruths.

        2. Gosh, Dr. Death or Diane, one has to use a bit of intelligence. The limiting factor was time and if drilling a hole was going to save a life you do it as quickly as possible and you don’t make stops out of the way that delay treatment.

          You two don’t seem to be able to read or comprehend, but you do like to make up a lot of things.

          1. Allan clearly isn’t a medical professional and is out of his depth in this discussion.

            Furthermore, his comments reflect a basic lack of understanding of emergency medicine and critical care.

            He should stop embarrassing himself and bow out. He’ll just keep at it, though.

            1. Anonymous is being stupid. She thinks one takes their time when a person is dying. Not smart but that is lazy and crazy anonymous.

              I’d love to hear you summarize your undertanding of emergency medicine and critical care. Do you do your nails?

              1. I’ll repeat that, since you didn’t get it the first time:

                Allan clearly isn’t a medical professional and is out of his depth in this discussion.

                Furthermore, his comments reflect a basic lack of understanding of emergency medicine and critical care.

                He should stop embarrassing himself and bow out. He’ll just keep at it, though.

                1. Diane, I’m not claiming to be any type of expert on anything. I only claim I know more than you. That doesn’t say much for anyone but I think when someone’s condition is critical and time sensitive that factor should be taken into consideration. I think the time to definitive treatment was less than 4 hours especially since the delays ate up a lot of time. Do you have a comment about the 4 hours? No? I didn’t think so. Now go home and drink your alcoholic beverage of choice and go find your Gerbil.

                  1. Allan said: “I only claim I know more than you.”

                    Oh, you’re free to make that claim, but you’re 100% wrong about that, buddy. 100%.

                    1. And let’s repeat this, too:

                      Anonymous says: September 8, 2019 at 2:07 AM
                      To the other Anonymous,

                      I thought that Allan was merely stupid and a blowhard.
                      I should have picked up on it earlier that he is also off his rocker.
                      But as someone pointed out earlier, maybe his obsessive commenting here on any and all subjects means that he can’t do as much damage elsewhere.

                      Anon @ 2:07 is correct.

                  1. Why doesn’t anonymous tell us what should be done since she seems to know so much about what shouldn’t be done.

                    Shortening the timespan to the hospital that can treat the patient is something anonymous thinks is wrong. Is her solution to lengthen the delay?

                    1. “Allan’s not worth the time and breath”

                      Since you spend all that time there must be a reason behind you chasing me. You are lonely because:

                      1) no man will have you
                      2) the Gerbil died
                      3) you are insane

                    2. Again with the ad hominem but totally absent any substance. That is why one can call you stupid. If you don’t want to be called stupid you have to include some in context facts.

    2. As with your hero, you cannot engage in any kind of discussion involving reason or logic, because reason and logic do not apply to Trump, his brand or his disciples. He is an ignorant, racist misogynist pig who cheated to steal the Presidency with help from Russians to whom he is beholden because he needs to borrow money from them and the Saudi’s to avoid going out of business entirely after so many failures.. He is the most unsuccessful president in modern history–consistently polling below 50%, and with a high disapproval rating. These are facts. You instead engage in ad hominem attacks. Now you want me dead? Seriously? For what? The crime of criticizing Trump?

      1. “Now you want me dead? Seriously?”

        Natacha,

        I think that Allan was talking about Natasha Richardson, but I’ve only glanced at the earlier comments, so I’m not absolutely certain.

      2. Natasha, I know how hard it is for you to recognize that Trump is not the only one under discussion and I recognize that you have trouble comprehending the written word but I was talking about Natasha Richardson.

        Natasha Richardson died of a head injury. The question was whether or not the almost 4 hour trip was too much and whether one should go to a hospital that can treat the emergency that is killing the patient or if one should follow the general plan for most injuries that are not life threatening and in the process increase the amount of time spent in transit which equates to a higher death rate? In general life threatening emergencies that are killing a patient in a short period of time should head directly to the place that can treat them.

        If you have a head injury while skiing and definitive treatment needs to be given in minutes or a couple of hours (time is of the essence) would you like to go the long way for treatment or the shorter route directly to the hospital that might be able to save your life?

          1. Anonymous to be exact I think it was 3 hours and 39 minutes from the time Natasha left the mountain on the second call till she got to the second hospital that good offer definitive treatment. She was already brain dead. Time had taken its toll.

            You constantly interject without knowing any of the fact which dummies down the list making it less valuable.

            Why don’t you look it up and provide the time line. Even Dr. Death I think recognizes this time as true.

            1. Richardson arrived at the first hospital in an ambulance trip that lasted about 20 minutes.
              She was later transferred to the Montreal hospital by ambulance…..that trip took about 45 minutes.
              20 minutes + 45 minutes may be 4 hours in AllanWorld, be not to most people.
              And most people do not hallucinate, seeing Diane everywhere.

              1. I am glad you said that so the rest of the group can see that you don’t know what you are talking about and you can’t add. This is the typical everyday anonymous.

                2:59 Richardson named a Priority 1
                6:38 Richardson arrived at Hospital du Sacre-Coeus already brain dead.

                She ran out of time.

                Now that you finally know the start and end time you can see why I wanted the timeline shortened.

                1. If you think what you posted in evidence of “a nearly 4 hour trip”, you must be tripping on something.
                  The 20 minute ambulance run and the 45 minute ambulance run do not come anywhere close to 4 hours.
                  And contrary to your extremely stupid earlier observation,no, the where not just “doing her nails” in between transit.

                  1. I can’t help it if you wish to make yourself sound stupid but I gave you the times according to the ambulance reports and I think those numbers were repeated in the blog more than once. Go look them up. They are easily available on the Internet. But at least now you are recognizing the almost 4 hours was too long.

                    The time from the secondary hospital that was unable to do the procedure to save her life to the time she arrived at the trauma hospital was less than 45 minutes. That means from the time the Priority 1 was called till she left the secondary hospital where definitive treatment couldn’t be given was about 3 hours.

                    You really should know the numbers by now but you don’t like to deal with facts, only ad hominems and a nasty attitude.

                    1. I know the timelines, Allan. And I know that you have repeatedly lied about those timelines, trying to double down on, and prop up your idiotic “Allan knows best” theme.

                    2. You obviously don’t know the time lines and if you do you won’t admit you were wrong. You are dishonest and vile.

                    3. We know that by, “Allan Standards”, when Allan calls others stupid ignorant, liars, etc. that those are not ad hominems. When he gets those insults thrown back in his inbred face, they are ad hominens.
                      The moral is do not be “nasty” to Allan; he is very sensitive. It may push him even farther over the edge.

                    4. “We know that by, …”

                      Again no fact just ad hominem proving once again how stupid you really are. You are a waste.

                    5. Dr. Death, when you say the timeline of under 4 hours is meaningless means you don’t know what you are talking about or you believe she shouldn’t have been sent anywhere for treatment rather she should have been sent to the morgue where you do your work.

                      Now you are providing us (guessing) with how much time there was means that you are pretending to be an expert when no expert would know in advance how long she had to live. You are providing averages which differs from the individual.The only thing known was that if death were coming the only thing that would add time was the procedure before brain death.

                      Your time window is fictitious though at the time of the call one could consider those numbers high probablilities (30-90 minutes) and that is why a solution that was closer to that timeline needed to be found. Bringing her to a facility that could not do the procedure meant that even your fictitious numbers would be exceeded and she would die. From priority 1 to arriving at the hospital that would provide life saving treatment was just under 4 hours.

                      From afar Dr. Death filled out Natasha’s death certificate rather than treat. From afar Allan called for a solution (not perfect) that could extend her timeline and her life. Dr. Death called for death. Allan called for an attempt to keep her alive.

                      What do most people want? No chance or a chance?

                      All over the world people have been given a chance to live and did so. Dr. Death while pretending knowledge of a doctor is only offering a quick death.

                    6. Natasha Richardson refused treatment, not just once, but twice. In doing so, she sealed her fate.

                      There was (arguably?) a 30-90 minute treatment window after symptoms began. During this time, a burr-hole or craniotomy might have saved her. All bets were off, after this treatment window had passed — and it passed at just about the same time that the second ambulance arrived. (She fell at ~12:45, symptoms began at 1:45, and the second ambulance arrived at 3:09.) After 90 minutes, deterioration would have been rapid.

                      So while Allan is yammering about the time that it took to get her to Montreal, it was pretty much over by the time the second ambulance arrived at Mont Tremblant.

                      Allan’s “timeline” is irrelevant and meaningless.

                2. No, “you wanted” to lie about the amount of time Richardson was transferred by ambulance.
                  That’s why you tried to claim that about 1 hour was nearly 4 hours.

                  1. Allan spins and distorts, as do some other frequent posters who shall remain unnamed.

                    When there was a dust-up in Oregon between Antifa and some Proud Boys supporters, he railed about Antifa chasing an 8 yr-old girl. He couldn’t repeat it enough.

                    Finally, it was revealed that this 8 yr-old girl was the adult daughter of a guy who is a known provocateur. She attends to him during his “outings” to help keep him in line because he “gets a little crazy.” So this was Allan’s 8 yr-old girl — the child being chased and harassed by Antifa.

                    He could have done the research and located this information himself, but it was easier to run around like a chicken with its head cut off…crying that an 8 yr-old child had been terrorized by Antifa.

                    He’s doing something similar now, with the timeline. The second ambulance didn’t arrive until 3:09 and departed at 3:42. He’s including this in his “4 hours.”

                    Allan’s a fraud. And he’s not a particularly smart one, either, as we know.

                    1. Anonymous, It was initially reported as an ~8 year old girl and the pictures looked like one. As soon as I found an article that demonstrated she was likely an adult I posted that fact. Unlike you if I post a fact that is wrong I immediately retract it as soon as I am told or learn the truth.

                      You never do that. You simply compound one error with another and say stupid things.

                      You are violent and think it was OK that a mob nearly killed Ngo’s. In fact you made all sorts of statements that were wrong or crazy about those incidents. No corrections came from you rather you tried to shift the blame to the victim. You are a horrid person.

                      In the meantime you have had time to correct the time line about the ambulance. Did you do so? No. Instead you found something wrongfully reported and I repeated and then retracted. Not you. You prefer to distort and lie. You cannot be trusted.

                    2. “As soon as I found an article that demonstrated she was likely an adult I posted that fact. Unlike you if I post a fact that is wrong I immediately retract it as soon as I am told or learn the truth.” So says Allan, the liar.

                      Total BS, by Allan. How long is your nose, now, you lying [fill in the blank]?

                      I posted that information, not you.

                    3. Yes I did and I even remember saying that there were reports that she might be his sister. That response was almost immediately after a link was posted by another.

                      You don’t admit the many times you have been wrong. You just lie and everyone knows it.

                    4. The second ambulance arrived at 3:09, so Allan needs to shave another 10 minutes off his phony-baloney timeline.

                      And unless people are now being teleported, he must subtract the travel time from his “4 hour delay’, as well.

                      We’ll take him through this slowly, though he’ll never get it.

                      In the meantime, Allan might read up on the need to minimize inflammation and manage ICP.

                    5. “The second ambulance arrived at 3:09,…”

                      Unlike you, I have been consistent and I don’t lie. What I have said all along is that Richardson became a priority 1 at 2:59. That is when the time clock starts for this segment of Richardson’s travail. It ended at 6:38. That is almost 4 hours to get a patient from A to B the place where the patient can have the needed treatment to save the patient’s life. In the interim the patient was taken to a hospital that could not do the treatment to save the patient’s life.

                      Anywhere along the timeline calls could have been made to find the closest location that had a chance to save her life rather than take her to a place where time would be lost and where she would have to be transferred to another facility

                      Dr. Death cannot tell the difference between a minor illness and one that threatens a patients life.

                  2. The timeline of the final hours of Richardson’s life are fairly well established, and do not jive with Allan’s fantasies.
                    Especially the fairy tale about a “nearly 4 hour trip”.
                    This has been explained to him, but if it interferes with Allan’s ridiculous pet theories, he will not hear of it.
                    If the facts do not cooperate with his nutty theories, he just changes the facts.

                    1. Dr. death uses generalities instead of timelines because the total time was almost 4 hours, 2:59 PM to 6:38. He talks about fairy tales when those are the times released by the hospitals.

                      Note where the generalities come from. Dr. Death who in all this time has refused to be specific. I have been specific with the times and I offerred a reasonable solution. Go directly Hospital du Sacre-Coeur or to any other facility that can do the immediate procedure that saves her life and then transfer to any hospital needed.

                      Now Dr. Death, tell us why that couldn’t be done. If you can’t then you can see how ridiculous you sound. Skip all the other garbage that you throw in there to hide the fact that you are wrong.

              2. Allan’s really a piece of work — railing about a timeline and then demanding that someone else post said timeline.

                He’s not man enough to post his timeline and address it an adult-like manner.

                He’s a kid, posing as an adult.

      3. I’ve been a bit disengage from this discussion, but after reading your comment there’s only one thing I can say… You bring stupid to new heights

  14. Anonymous Diane, it seems you keep repeating the same old things and they are being removed from the blog. Next step just like the Diane’s of the world you might be leaving us as well.

    1. Let’s repeat this:

      Anonymous says: September 8, 2019 at 2:08 AM

      Allan clearly lacks the fundamental capacity and medical background to be able to properly analyze what transpired with Natasha Richardson, as noted earlier.

      Without the patient’s medical record and a complete timeline, which would include **everything** that transpired from the time the second ambulance arrived and Natasha Richardson’s arrival in Montreal, it’s impossible to draw meaningful conclusions. Input from her family and all of those who participated in her care would be an important, as well.

      But old Allan has a bee up his a$$ and either can’t — or won’t –recognize and/or admit that he is missing critical and necessary information.

      1. You win anonymous. When you burst youe abdominal aneurysm we will make sure to take you to a birthing center to correct any electrolyte problems you have and then after that is done we will take you to a hospital that can operate on a burst abdominal aneurism but you will be dead.

      2. To the other anonymous,
        I don’t think this was mentioned, but the drive ( normal drive time) to the hospital where Richardson was first taken is about 30 minutes.
        The drive time the Montreal hospital is about 1 hour and 40 minutes.
        That is an additional factor in the decision to take Richardson to one of the closest hospitals.
        There is no Star Trek- like transporter room at the ski resort to magically and immediately get her to Montreal. They could not put in a call for help at 3PM and have her in Montreal by 3:01 PM.
        In spite of what one individual here keeps insisting, there was no “4 hour delay” in treating her.
        Even IF the ambulance had arrived at 3:01 PM after their second call at 3PM, and the decision was made to go directly to Montreal, there is the transit time factor involved.
        Only if one pretends that the ambulance could get there in one minute, load her up in one more minute (without evaluation or medical history or background on her deterioration since her fall), and zip off to Montreal at 3:02 PM could you cut it down from 4 hours to about 2 hours.
        Had there been a 2 hour delay in stabilizing and scanning her…..that’s what it would take to immediately decide to transport her to Montreal….. legimate questions would be raised about those decisions.
        They were trying to keep her alive, and her chances of remaining alive absent stabilization would be greatly diminished.

        1. Dr Death, what you are saying is that a person whose mental status is quickly degrading and might die or suffer severe morbitity in minutes or hours should have the definitive treatment delayed by 2 hours by which time she was brain dead? How does that make sense?

          Why not take her to a hospital where the procedure can be performed?

          What benefit is there to stabilizing her electrolytes an hour earlier but then having her become brain dead due to her time running out while in transport.? (I think Quebec later recognized the failure of their strategy so they now air evac.)

          Try a different scenario. A person is shot in the street and is bleeding to death needing immediate abdominal surgery. Do we take him to the closer hospital and stabilize his electrolytes while he bleeds to death or do we take him to a place where surgery can be performed to save his life?

          “They were trying to keep her alive, and her chances of remaining alive absent stabilization would be greatly diminished.”

          Dr. Death are you now pretending to be a real doctor? If the patient didn’t need the immediate surgery she had time to go to three or four hospitals but if she needed immediate surgery like Natasha did justified by her mental status and scores she needed it done as quickly as possible for the odds of survival decreased with every minute.

          1. Diagnosis and treatment of injuries from a gunshot wound will differ from treatment from injuries to the head from a fall, so it is a foolish comparison.
            Contrary to what might play out on a TV medical drama, immediate and accurate diagnosis is not always possible. The vast majority of head injuries will turn out to be concussions. To assume immediately that there is a subdural or epidural hematona, skip imaging and other diagonostic measures, forget about patient stabilization, and drill holes in the skull is not recommended procedure.
            It’s relatively easy for someone in a particular case, with the benefit of hindsight, to claim that “they would have” immediately known the diagnosis and proper treatment.
            It can be much more difficult in real time, as events are unfolding, to immediately know the diagnosis and treatment. There is no shortage of armchair experts, Monday morning quarterbacks, who pretend that “they would have known” all along the correct diagnosis and treatment in a particular case.
            Blowhards like that are a dime a dozen, and there is no point in trying to reason particularly dedicated one like Allan.

            1. Dr. Death, all critical injuries where death occurs very quickly have one thing in common, time. You can continue being foolish and not recognize that if you wish.

              How does the time factor differ between a person bleeding out quickly or another spiraling toward brain death? I note how you avoid answering questions because you don’t really understand the subject matter. Instead you make statements that have no pertinence and you don’t even recognize it.

              Your second paragraph makes absolutely no sense to any intelligent person. The clinical history was there even though you are unable to see it. Hindsight has nothing to do with what I say because everything I know now was known then by those in charge.

              Do you think that those caring for Natasha didn’t recognize when she was critical and in dire need of care?

              What hindsight advantage do I have?

              Your verbal skills are fooling you into making you believe that your critical thinking skills are adequate at least in this discussion. You didn’t even recognize that Dr. Black’s statement didn’t have anything to do with ambulance number 2 and the almost 4 hours it took to get a dire emergency to a place where treatment could be obtained.

              Think what you wish but you are wrong, wrong, wrong and can’t even recognize the possibilities.

  15. This is news? We have gone from ‘Trump is a Russian agent/puppet’ all the way, way, way down to ‘Trump is guilty of Sharpie abuse’?

    Why is this even discussed?

    1. Rachelle – Sharpie abuse is the second major case of death in the Houses of Congress. You can guess what number one is.

  16. A statement issued by NOAA said, “….information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public determined that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for this to be reported on CNN or MSNBC.

    1. RSA, it’s been reported that Trump’s ‘Acting Head’ of NOAA was politically pressured to issue that ‘unsigned’ statement.

      1. Peter it’s been reported that the anonymous reports that littered the Washington Post about the Russia hoax “was politically pressured” but you thought the Post reported the facts. Now we have proof of the hoax and the anonymous reporting which was politically motivated but you are still spewing your cr-p. You are a hypocrite.

Leave a Reply