tango Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) I don't find her wrd to be very convincing. One question though, where does the 1998 number come from Tango? At the beginning of this thread. We've been over this ground before and now people who haven't read anything about it are making it up as they go. Holmes was diagnosed accurately in Canada in 1998 as having a slow growing cyst on her pituitary. She developed symptoms (vision) in 2005, I believe. Then she was told she'd have to wait a few months to see a neurologist and have an MRI. At that point, her husband decided instead to pay for her to go to the Mayo clinic in the US, where the diagnosis was confirmed and she was treated. The ONLY reason she went to the states was because of the wait for specialists, and because her husband insisted. She did not have a "brain tumour". She was not in danger of dying. She lied to the US public, for political purposes and possibly monetary gain ... or fame. What kind of person wants to be famous as a liar? She deserves nothing but contempt, imo. If she does sue, I hope the government sues her back for defamation. Edited August 18, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Holmes was diagnosed accurately in Canada in 1998 as having a slow growing cyst on her pituitary. "Ms. Holmes was first diagnosed with a small tumour in 1998, but doctors said it was not a cause for concern and should be monitored closely." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/...article1235815/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 She lied to the US public, for political purposes and possibly monetary gain ... or fame. What kind of person wants to be famous as a liar? She deserves nothing but contempt, imo. If she does sue, I hope the government sues her back for defamation. How do you know this? Al you are offering up is third party hearsay and your own spin. You don't know for sure what happened with her case. I hope she is fully or partialy compensated just to irk her self appointed detractors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I hope she is fully or partialy compensated just to irk her self appointed detractors. Resentment is very destructive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Excuse me ... wrong link. From your link benny: Among the accusations levied against Ms. Holmes are that she exaggerated the severity of her brain tumour and it was actually a Rathke's cleft cyst, which is said to be benign. Ms. Holmes counters that doctors did diagnose her with a Rathke's cleft cyst, but it is still considered a tumour, which her American doctors told her would certainly cause death if not removed immediately. She said the cyst was pushing on her pituitary gland and causing endocrine issues; she also feared permanent vision loss. Ms. Holmes was first diagnosed with a small tumour in 1998, but doctors said it was not a cause for concern and should be monitored closely. So ... Holmes prefers to call it a "brain tumour" which is not accurate. Also, I don't believe the Mayo clinic told her she was in immediate danger of dying. If they did, then they are guilty of creating business for themselves by lying, and I doubt that. Instead, I believe she made that up too ... just like she made up her "brain tumour". http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html "We needed to remove the cyst to save her vision." It says nothing about her being in danger of dying. I believe the Mayo refused to endorse the partisan commercial she made. I for one will be encouraging OHIP to sue her back. Edited August 18, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 ....So ... Holmes prefers to call it a "brain tumour" which is not accurate.Also, I don't believe the Mayo clinic told her she was in immediate danger of dying. If they did, then they are guilty of creating business for themselves by lying, and I doubt that. Instead, I believe she made that up too ... just like she made up her "brain tumour". I for one will be encouraging OHIP to sue her back. So not only are you attacking the victim, you expect her to have medical expertise as well. Then you go on to accuse the Mayo Clinic of lying just to make a buck. Hmmmm....I see a trend here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Then you go on to accuse the Mayo Clinic of lying just to make a buck. Who are you to blame him, your own motto is: "Economics trumps virtue"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) So not only are you attacking the victim, you expect her to have medical expertise as well. Then you go on to accuse the Mayo Clinic of lying just to make a buck. Hmmmm....I see a trend here. I know four year olds who can figure out the distinction between tumour and cyst or life threatening and non-life threatening. The internet is a wonderfull thing. She didn't act rationally and now she's paying for it. She's a "victim" in the same way a con artist is a "victim" when you lie your victim status quickly goes away. Edited August 18, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Who are you to blame him, your own motto is: "Economics trumps virtue"? That applies in Canada too..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 So not only are you attacking the victim, you expect her to have medical expertise as well. Then you go on to accuse the Mayo Clinic of lying just to make a buck. Hmmmm....I see a trend here. speaking of lying ... Read it again b_c ... "and I doubt that" However, I did notice that the Mayo also referred to her previous diagnosis as a "brain tumour", obviously not verifying that with the records, pretty tacky in itself. Notice whan challenged, she said she knows it was called R... cyst when it was diagnosed in 1998, but she and the Mayo and the partisans prefer to go the inflammatory route and call it a "brain tumour", which never was her diagnosis. Pretty tacky all round, I say. I am also aware that some of us here are just trying to learn the truth, and others are just trying to distort the truth. And that's pretty tacky too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 That applies in Canada too..... Don't hope justice will be done here then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I know four year olds who can figure out the distinction between tumour and cyst or life threatening and non-life threatening. The internet is a wonderfull thing. She didn't act rationally and now she's paying for it. Bullpuckey....cysts can grow to size of a basketball. She and her husband made a decision based on what they knew and could tolerate from the "tough it out in the wait line" medical professionals in Ontario. Now they get to sue their asses in court....also her right, or do you want to take that away too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Don't hope justice will be done here then! You don't get it....to save a nickel....you will wait an extra year....that's economics too. Edited August 18, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Now they get to sue their asses in court....also her right, or do you want to take that away too? Would you hope "Economics trumps virtue" also in Canadian courts!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Would you hope "Economics trumps virtue" also in Canadian courts!? I don't have to hope.....it already does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I don't have to hope.....it already does. What allow you to hope then that Holmes will take her revenge through Canadian courts!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 What allow you to hope then that Holmes will take her revenge through Canadian courts!? It's not revenge.....many Canadians seek and receive such compensation after their "medical tourism". The provinces have a problem and can't guarantee equal access and treatments for all.....any attorney worth his/her salt can exploit this for at least an out-of-court settlement. Looks like that teenie tiny brain cyst is going to become a major pain in the ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 It's not revenge.....many Canadians seek and receive such compensation after their "medical tourism". The provinces have a problem and can't guarantee equal access and treatments for all.....any attorney worth his/her salt can exploit this for at least an out-of-court settlement. Looks like that teenie tiny brain cyst is going to become a major pain in the ass. When economics trumps virtue, courts become a rig game of chances where only the richest bribers of judges can hope for a prize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 When economics trumps virtue, courts become a rig game of chances where only the richest bribers of judges can hope for a prize. Not in this case....it's not a malpractice lawsuit. I think they will get at least the cost of treatment in Canada plus some gift certificates at Canadian Tire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) Not in this case....it's not a malpractice lawsuit. I think they will get at least the cost of treatment in Canada plus some gift certificates at Canadian Tire. So now, economics trumps virtue only in lawsuits involving medical malpractice! Edited August 18, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 I don't know about Ontario, but in Manitoba you have to have your doctor refer you to an outside facility. If you don't, and you go on your own, they won't cover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 So now, economics trumps virtue only in lawsuits involving medical malpractice! Only with benny logic.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Only with benny logic.... Starting to wonder about that logic? I will aways turn a yellowed eye towards those that seek power..but don't have a clue what it is for - or how to use it. The logic of power for powers sake is extremely illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 Starting to wonder about that logic? I will aways turn a yellowed eye towards those that seek power..but don't have a clue what it is for - or how to use it. The logic of power for powers sake is extremely illogical. But that's why Kirk got the job instead of Spock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 18, 2009 Report Share Posted August 18, 2009 But that's why Kirk got the job instead of Spock. Passion rules - Passion clouds the mind - Passion makes us spend our lives with woman that are not our friends...Passion is what elected OBAMA ---- while Spock got stuck on Ritalin as a kid and was raised by early childhood educators..with a certificate of moral exception...Spock is the boss - Met "Jim Kirk" in real life - He had the swollen face of a drunk - and yelled at me...well what do you expect from a Canadian who became to dependant on American fancey, space travel - little green men and the power of passion to rule the rubes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.