enough and honest to say you've never seen it before, okay, when he went back to a case, a single case report when there is far better, far stronger epidemiological data and so on, and as we all know in the hierarchy of evidence, the case report is just toward the low end of the totem pole. When we realize that that is the premise upon which he based his opinion that I've never seen one, now I base it upon a case study as opposed to stronger data. Number 3, I misquoted the data, then it becomes a bit concerning about the conclusion that you draw having made those 3, what I would call methodological errors in this process. It's all concerning, and we now know that the ex-husband of Katie May is bringing suit against this chiropractor that was in, perhaps, the wrong place at the wrong time, but if this type of case goes to trial, how much of these reports are really open to interpretation, as you said, it seems like it really muddies the water more than anything. There seems t be inherent inconsistencies. A lawyer may look at it and see one set of inconsistencies. Maybe you would be the expert witness or somebody else and see another set of inconsistencies there. As a result, when all is said and done, does the coroner's conclusions supersede everything else? No, I don't think that's the case at all. I think that the coroner's conclusions are helpful in certain ways. I should say the coroner's findings are helpful in certain ways. The conclusions that are drawn on those findings are then subject to interpretation. It's that interpretation that you and I are talking about right now and that we have concern about over time is are the conclusions ... I'm not arguing with the facts that the gentleman developed, I'm sure the woman's kidney weighed what the gentleman said it weighed. I'm sure that the different measurements that were taken are accurate. I'm confident that the illustration that he created in the process of the autopsy is accurate. I'm not taking any issue with that. I'm sure the man is very competent. What I am talking about is you've got a situation the fellow has never seen before. He's using a literature base that's very weak. He's misquoting the literature-base and coming to a conclusion using that chain of reasoning, and I think it's very say and very fair to say that needs to be reevaluated and reexamined. I think that's not a stretch. That's not a great one in a million misinterpretation or something to that nature. This is a very straightforward line of reasoning that doesn't add up. One of the things that I want to touch on is something that you and I go around the country speaking about at different groups and webinars and things of that nature when it comes to the strokes specifically related to the arterial dissections. We've, at least I have put out in our public domain that it's impossible to dissect an artery when it's a healthy artery. We know that there are certain things that can cause an artery to be more susceptible to dissection including some congenital history. Is it possible, in your opinion, that there may be more to this in terms of congenital history that may not have even been revealed to the coroner? We don't know, but when we're talking about a bilateral dissection rather than a unilateral one, that is so rare to begin with, could it be something related to a congenital abnormality that could've set her up in the first place?
Dr. Hoffman:
Dr. Clum:
Dr. Hoffman:
Made with FlippingBook HTML5