Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
Might have a 15% chance of stopping a disease that already left him blind, deaf and paralyzed?
Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...
Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...
But that's not the way the advocates of the Gards are portraying it. they are portraying it as he was going to get better, if it weren't for this damned socialized medicine which probably spent more on his treatment than a private insurance company would have before bankrupting his parents.
You see, if Corporate Medicine had the answer, there are probably a lot more cases to tinker with in the US than the UK.... The fact that had to engage in a little socialized medicine bashing because they finally had the decency to say, "enough".
Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...
But that's not the way the advocates of the Gards are portraying it. they are portraying it as he was going to get better, if it weren't for this damned socialized medicine which probably spent more on his treatment than a private insurance company would have before bankrupting his parents.
You see, if Corporate Medicine had the answer, there are probably a lot more cases to tinker with in the US than the UK.... The fact that had to engage in a little socialized medicine bashing because they finally had the decency to say, "enough".
Yeah.. There WAS a chance to "get better".. And the GOVT denied the parents ACCESS TO THEIR OWN CHILD -- to use that chance.
Not enough is known about the disease and the effects of reversal. In a developing child, correcting the mitochondrial gap issues means that EXISTING tissue is made functioning again. And NEW tissue is correctly grown.
So like I told your pal Tommy. At the VERY LEAST -- Charlie could have helped Thousands of other kids...
But that's not the way the advocates of the Gards are portraying it. they are portraying it as he was going to get better, if it weren't for this damned socialized medicine which probably spent more on his treatment than a private insurance company would have before bankrupting his parents.
You see, if Corporate Medicine had the answer, there are probably a lot more cases to tinker with in the US than the UK.... The fact that had to engage in a little socialized medicine bashing because they finally had the decency to say, "enough".
US doctor in Charlie Gard case speaks outWhat treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.You are misinformed.Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
“Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
“When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
“It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
“Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.
Propaganda to justify denying treatment.Bullshit. The fact that he didn't come to the UK at the Hospital's bidding does not confirm he couldn't help. Nor did his testimony "confirm that he could not help". You're a liar.What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.You are misinformed.Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
“Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
“When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
“It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
“Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.
Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
"Unfortunately, a MRI scan of Charlie's muscle tissue conducted in the past week has revealed that it is very unlikely that he would benefit from this treatment."
You should actually read up on stuff before you shoot your ignorant mouth off.
You are misinformed.Saved from what? Are you a doctor?[
No -- of course.. It's all about FAIRNESS and EQUALITY of treatment. If word got out that baby was saved, by Gawdly -- they MIGHT have other Brits demanding that Brit Heath cover the treatment.
THAT -- would be unacceptable to the Gate Keepers.. Or should I say "Death Panel"....
Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
“Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
“When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
“It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
“Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.
Absolutely NOTHING devasting there. The condition we're discussing has KNOWN progressions. And the researcher was more familiar with these facts than probably the attending physicians provided by Brit Health.
There would be NO REASON to come visit the child if the ENTIRE Brit Govt was saying no.. None whatsoever. He's not a care-taker or there to comfort parents -- he's a researcher.
If the Govt hadn't definitely RULED OUT allowing that family to travel for treatment, there WOULD have been a visit and an evaluation. Either by the Principal Investigator or one of his associates.
Furthermore -- EVEN IF -- the American Doctor wasn't gonna to get embroiled in this and COULD NOT help Charlie, YOU need to recognize that under those conditions, CHARLIE could have helped THOUSANDS of other kids with this condition. You don't really THINK. You react instinctively and politically..
Bless you little one.
Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday
British baby Charlie Gard, who was at the center of a legal battle that captured the world’s attention, died Friday, one week before his first birthday, UK’s Press Association reports.
Charlie Gard, focus of international legal health battle, dies week before first birthday
In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home. He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home. He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
Don't count on an adult going home to die once the government has given its death sentence. In a hospice food and water are denied. The person is kept sedated to alleviate the effects of starvation and dehydration. At home, a family member might provide water or food.In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home. He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
Nonsense. Someone that is dying does not get a breathing machine.In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home. He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
They said the equipment/breathing machine was too big to get into the house.
Nonsense. Someone that is dying does not get a breathing machine.In a final slap, a kick if you will, the court ruled that this baby's parents could not take him home. He died in hospice where he could be denied even a suck of water.
Parents should be allowed to take a baby and/or a child home for it to die, not something as impersonal as a hospice, an adult can go home to die, so why not a baby and/or a child.
They said the equipment/breathing machine was too big to get into the house.
US doctor in Charlie Gard case speaks outWhat treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.You are misinformed.Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
“Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
“When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
“It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
“Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.
Propaganda to justify denying treatment.Bullshit. The fact that he didn't come to the UK at the Hospital's bidding does not confirm he couldn't help. Nor did his testimony "confirm that he could not help". You're a liar.What treatment ? There was no treatment. Dr Hirano had not seen the child or even read his notes. When he gave evidence he confirmed that he could not help.You are misinformed.Saved from the progress of a disease that a MONTH AGO -- MIGHT have been arrested by an American doctor on a trial program. You know that -- why are you dogging me? That doctor suggested a 15 to 50% chance of stopping and reversing the disease with cutting edge gene therapy..
A cruel and ignorant campaign | MelaniePhillips.com
The hospital statement contains two particularly devastating passages. The first leaves the reputation of Professor Hirano in shreds.
“Professor Hirano (“the Professor”), whose laboratory research has an international reputation, is very well known to the experts at GOSH and he communicated with them about NBT treatment for Charlie at the very end of December. In January, GOSH invited the Professor to come and see Charlie. That invitation remained open at all times but was not taken up until 18 July after being extended, once again, this time by the Court.
“When the hospital was informed that the Professor had new laboratory findings causing him to believe NBT would be more beneficial to Charlie than he had previously opined, GOSH’s hope for Charlie and his parents was that that optimism would be confirmed.”
That claim of new research evidence was why the parents returned to court and re-opened the case. The judge said he was eager to hear of this new evidence and hoped it would enable him to reverse his previous ruling. The GOSH statement, however, continues:
“It was, therefore, with increasing surprise and disappointment that the hospital listened to the Professor’s fresh evidence to the Court. On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April.
“Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie. Devastatingly, the information obtained since 13 July gives no cause for optimism. Rather, it confirms that whilst NBT may well assist others in the future, it cannot and could not have assisted Charlie.”
In other words, there never was any hope for Charlie – and the claim that
fresh research evidence provided some new hope was wholly without foundation and came from someone who had never even examined the child.
Propaganda to justify denying treatment.
"Unfortunately, a MRI scan of Charlie's muscle tissue conducted in the past week has revealed that it is very unlikely that he would benefit from this treatment."
You should actually read up on stuff before you shoot your ignorant mouth off.
Yeah.. There WAS a chance to "get better".. And the GOVT denied the parents ACCESS TO THEIR OWN CHILD -- to use that chance.
What is this fucking "CORPORATE Medicine" slogan? Do you know the capital and the brainpower that needs to be assembled to even REPLICATE gene therapy research?? I do. I've provided a lot of high tech equipment designs to this effort. And it's NOT done without HUGE risk and HUGE investment..
Here's the deal with you leftists and your anti Capitalist slogans. You ARE that way because you want the Govt to provide a RISK FREE environment for you.. AND force it on me as well. KNOW WHAT? COMPLICATED EXPENSIVE shit NEVER gets done without losses, failures and RISK.
RISK is the great unknown to you morons. And you have no appreciation about how medical advances are done. Because you have no concept of RISK and INVESTMENT.. .
Charlie Gard was denied treatment despite a willingness to pay, for only one reason. Liberals are against the advancement of medical knowledge.
Treatment of the broken bones of elderly patients is an iffy thing, as well...and we all know how painful broken bones are. I imagine that the next step will be, as was already mentioned in this thread, denying treatment to the elderly because it just prolongs their agony, and there isn't much of a chance of a full recovery. You don't actually recover from old age. And they won't get the chance to try.
