Replies

No one's a "liar". You can still have 75% of *brain tissue* when only a small amount of your *cerebral cortex* remains.

Matt Conigliaro is clearly a liar, for claiming that "The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex." Dr. Hammesfher disagrees, so there *is* a debate, and it is *not* what Mr. Conigliaro claims.

And no, you can't have 75% of brain tissue intact, and at the same time have all or even most of the cerebral cortex gone. The cerebral cortex accounts for 80% of the volume of the brain. Do the math.

And no, you can't have 75% of brain tissue intact, and at the same time have all or even most of the cerebral cortex gone. The cerebral cortex accounts for 80% of the volume of the brain. Do the math.

Actually, Trinity_Tx is right. Your error is that you confuse the cerebral cortex with the whole cerebrum. The cerebral cortex is just the "outer layer," while the 80% you cite is referring to the cerebral lobes underneath. See, for example, http://www.alzheimers.org/unraveling/04.htm. From the alzheimers.org glosary:

Cerebral cortex - the outer layer of nerve cells surrounding the cerebral hemispheres. [my emphasis]

I think the confusion arises when people look at a diagram of the brain and see the post label for "cerebral cortex"--and don't realize it's pointing to just the outside layer. (Sort of analogous to a picture of a cake that has an arrow to "Grey Frosting" and people think the whole cake is a blob of frosting. :-)

For example, here is the abstract of an article on a study done of boys with autism. Scans of the brain were done to determine volumes of each part, and the cerebrum was subdivided into cerebral cortex, cerebral white matter, hippocampus–amygdala, caudate nucleus, globus pallidus plus putamen, and diencephalon (thalamus plus ventral diencephalon). The children with autism had smaller volumes of cerebral cortex relative to the massive white matter portions below when compared to the control group.

"Matt Conigliaro is clearly a liar, for claiming that "The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex." Dr. Hammesfher disagrees, so there *is* a debate, and it is *not* what Mr. Conigliaro claims."

No. See above.
You are calling Matt Conigliaro a liar when all he is doing is quoting the 4 judges in their decisions after hearing testimony on the stand by all the doctors, including Hammasfher. If you read the transcript of the trial, you'll see they are exactly right.

From the decision of Florida's second district court of appeals:

The only debate between the doctors
is whether she has a small amount
of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex
or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.

Clear enough???

By the way, the 2D Court of Appeals didn't just review the handling of the hearing, they actually went out of their way re-examined the evidence presented and the testimony of each doctor themselves.

When Hammesfher gave actual testimony under oath, he was a hell of a lot less cocky than he was in that report, or since then running around doing interviews where he wont be subject to questioning. Again, he wrote his report *before* the trial, yet knowing it was full of bull, they *refused* to put it into evidence and allow it to be cross-examined!

As I said, I wouldn't call him a quack, but I will call him a liar - in the Clintonian sense at the very least. He tells half-truths and uses select words to mislead people. I show an example HERE.

Anyway... I'm doing my best to hold my tongue here, and please note all the stuff I don't comment on in all these other threads. But sheeeesh it is hard. Y'all base most of your case on this one doctor and his twisted words.