Jump to content
The Education Forum

Incisions for Chest Tubes: The "Cut Downs" at Parkland


Recommended Posts

The investigation by Ashton Gray, among others, of possible sinister activities undertaken by medical personnel and/or others at Parkland Hospital relative to the coup d'grace hypothesis represents an invaluable and long-overdue evolution of an earlier focus on the general subject of, well, medical malpractice in the JFK assassination.

As originally reported by Brad Parker some 11 years ago:

The first Dallas meeting of Dealey Plaza UK was held on Sunday, November 24, 1996 at the Dallas Grand Hotel. At 1:30 pm, Chairman Richard Livingstone called the meeting to order, adding that he hopes to have further meetings in Dallas.

Four speakers addressed the meeting. Each had spoken at the JFK-Lancer conference in the preceding days, but selected a different topic for this day.

[George Michael] Evica cited the discrepancy in the accounts of the chest tube incisions made in Dallas. According to Evica, the autopsy personnel did not notice the incisions or disruption to the interior chest wall caused by the trocars to assist in the introduction of the tubes. He determined that four possibilities for the inconsistencies exist:

1. The Dallas doctors lied..."which is unlikely."

2. The Dallas doctors introduced superficial incisions after death to make it appear as though they had implemented the chest drainage tubes..."which is unlikely."

3. The autopsy doctors lied.

4. Both the Dallas and Bethesda doctors were truthful, indicating the presence of a second body at the autopsy.

George Michael presented an updated chest wounds essay at the March, 2004 DPUK meeting in England.

So!

(sorry)

Yet more conflicting medical evidence in a case redolent of such machinations. The doppelganger phenomenon again is noted.

If a copy of Evica's presentation exists in the DPUK library, would someone kindly post it here? At the present time, George Michael cannot access his archives.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[George Michael] Evica cited the discrepancies in the accounts of the chest tube incisions made in Dallas. According to Evica, the autopsy personnel did not notice the incisions or disruption to the interior chest wall caused by the trocars to assist in the introduction of the tubes. He determined that four possibilities for the inconsistencies exist:

1. The Dallas doctors lied..."which is unlikely."

2. The Dallas doctors introduced superficial incisions after death to make it appear as though they had implemented the chest drainage tubes..."which is unlikely."

3. The autopsy doctors lied.

4. Both the Dallas and Bethesda doctors were truthful, indicating the presence of a second body at the autopsy.

I think this is a very fruitful avenue to explore, Charles. Evica's assessment of the only four possibilities for the glaring discrepency certainly are correct, although based on emerging information and analysis, (including the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, where I mentioned in passing this exact issue of the chest tubes), I would tend now to set aside Evica's "unlikely" characterization of the Dallas personnel—particularly, but not limited to, those who worked on both Kennedy and Oswald.

In his Warren Commission testimony, Commander Humes, who conducted the autopsy, is unequivocal about the fact that no chest tubes had been inserted (my bold emphasis throughout):

COMMANDER HUMES:
[T]hese were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on either side of the chest... . Their intention was to incise through the President's chest to place tubes into his chest. We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however,
did not enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin.
I presume that as they were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and they didn't pursue this.

He later goes on to say this about both the chest incisions and the cut-downs:

COMMANDER HUMES:
Those wounds [chest tube incisions and cut-downs] showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional.

In his deposition before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), Humes revisits the same theme of no chest tube insertion having been done:

COMMANDER HUMES:
[T]here were a couple of small—you never heard much about this, either—a couple of small incised wounds on the chest, and I forget— I wrote down, wherever I wrote it down, that it looked to me like somebody was going to think of putting in a chest tube. But they never did, because
all they did was go through the skin
. They obviously— I imagine they decided the President was deceased before they were going to pursue it. But somebody started, apparently, to insert chest tubes, which would not be an unreasonable thing to do. They were, you know, maybe two centimeters long, something like that, and between the ribs, low in the anterior chest.

This stands in sharp contrast to testimony of several of the Parkland doctors, who say categorically that chest tubes had been inserted into the chest.

I don't have the time at the moment to process their testimony on this, but I think it's going to become enlightening as it develops.

Ashton

P.S. It would be a help if a moderator could correct the spelling of "Chest" in the topic title for search engine purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a very fruitful avenue to explore, Charles. Evica's assessment of the only four possibilities for the glaring discrepency certainly are correct, although based on emerging information and analysis, (including the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, where I mentioned in passing this exact issue of the chest tubes), I would tend now to set aside Evica's "unlikely" characterization of the Dallas personnel—particularly, but not limited to, those who worked on both Kennedy and Oswald.

While I cannot speak directly for George Michael, I can assure you that he has repeatedly demonstrated the willingness -- indeed, the eagerness -- to refine his thinking based upon fresh research.

And thank you, moderator, for correcting my spelling error.

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I share your suspicion that some form of examination/alteration of the corpse was conducted en route from Dallas to Bethesda.

My focus here is on the body of JFK and any insults, justifiable in terms of resuscitative efforts and otherwise, to it in the period between the immediate cessation of gunfire and the removal of the corpse from Parkland.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The investigation by Ashton Gray, among others, of possible sinister activities undertaken by medical personnel and/or others at Parkland Hospital relative to the coup d'grace hypothesis represents an invaluable and long-overdue evolution of an earlier focus on the general subject of, well, medical malpractice in the JFK assassination.

As originally reported by Brad Parker some 11 years ago:

The first Dallas meeting of Dealey Plaza UK was held on Sunday, November 24, 1996 at the Dallas Grand Hotel. At 1:30 pm, Chairman Richard Livingstone called the meeting to order, adding that he hopes to have further meetings in Dallas.

Four speakers addressed the meeting. Each had spoken at the JFK-Lancer conference in the preceding days, but selected a different topic for this day.

[George Michael] Evica cited the discrepancy in the accounts of the chest tube incisions made in Dallas. According to Evica, the autopsy personnel did not notice the incisions or disruption to the interior chest wall caused by the trocars to assist in the introduction of the tubes. He determined that four possibilities for the inconsistencies exist:

1. The Dallas doctors lied..."which is unlikely."

2. The Dallas doctors introduced superficial incisions after death to make it appear as though they had implemented the chest drainage tubes..."which is unlikely."

3. The autopsy doctors lied.

4. Both the Dallas and Bethesda doctors were truthful, indicating the presence of a second body at the autopsy.

George Michael presented an updated chest wounds essay at the March, 2004 DPUK meeting in England.

So!

(sorry)

Yet more conflicting medical evidence in a case redolent of such machinations. The doppelganger phenomenon again is noted.

If a copy of Evica's presentation exists in the DPUK library, would someone kindly post it here? At the present time, George Michael cannot access his archives.

Charles

I think, perhaps, there should be a #5 in the list above.

5. Between Parkland and the crowded autopsy room someone may have done things to the body [brain, skull, neck, maybe more]. There is quite a bit of evidence this occurred for the brain and some changes to the skull....so perhaps a few things more?

Like "Surgery" to the right side of the President's head.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In researching this issue of the chest tube incisions, I have found an interesting correlation to a list that I started in the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat of doctors who worked on both John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. I am posting that list here in this thread because it is germane to the medical personnel who claim they inserted chest tubes into John F. Kennedy, despite autopsy findings that the chest tube incisions only were superficial.

Here is the list, in the order they arrived in Trauma Room One the day they worked on Kennedy. Jones arrived with Perry so those two are merely in alphabetical order:

Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins (anesthesiologist)

Dr. Ronald Coy Jones

Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter

Dr. Gene Coleman Akin

This list is inclusive, not exclusive.

I will be posting more in this thread referencing this list.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm posting yet another update the list of doctors at Parkland hospital who worked on both John F. Kennedy and on Lee Harvey Oswald to include, this time, Dr. Paul Conrad Peters. As before, I am listing the doctors in the order they arrived in Trauma Room One the day they worked on Kennedy. Jones arrived with Perry so those two are merely in alphabetical order:

Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins (anesthesiologist)

Dr. Ronald Coy Jones

Dr. Malcolm O. Perry

Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter

Dr. Paul Conrad Peters

Dr. Gene Coleman Akin

As before, this list is inclusive, not exclusive.

Peters says the following in an interview that appeared 1n the January 1997 issue of JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly:

DR. PAUL PETERS:
[On Sunday, 24 November 1963] I was home, but I was coming out to the school (Medical Center), and so I turned the radio on in my home. About then Dr. Shires, who was professor of surgery, zoomed past my house. I then heard that Oswald had been shot, so I went out to the hospital. I went right into the operating room and stood behind Tom [shires] while he was operating on Oswald. Oswald had what we call a smorgasbord injury. The bullet that killed him hit all the major organs. While they worked on him, no anesthesia was given, but he was unconscious. Oswald started to come around and by then he had been given 14 or 15 units of blood. He begn to move his arm up towards his chest. Secret Service men, dressed in green surgical gowns to mix with the surgeons, were shouting in his ear, "Did you do it, did you do it?" hoping to get him to nod his head or something. But his blood pressure gave way and he died. ...I must have taken 15 or 20 pictures of Tom [shires] operating on Lee Harvey Oswald and a guy came up and identified himself and said, "I'll take the camera." I told him the camera was not mine, that it belonged to the Radiology Department. He said he was going to take it and he said he would give it back. ...I never got the camera back, or the film.

Now, thee and me have no way of knowing whether or not Paul Peters actually spent his time there strolling around capturing Kodak moments, because of course the purported photos became a no-see-um, but I will say this: this list now has become downright spooky (take that any way you want) in relation to research now almost compiled on the who-and-what of the chest tube incisions discussed in this thread and in relation to the who-and-what of the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, so I also am posting it there.

I find it altogether fitting that this list of doctors who worked on both Kennedy and Oswald was begun on All Hallows Eve.

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've made an opportunity (where none existed) to research some information on the subject of the chest tubes that I thought might be worth sharing here. In doing so, I'm first going to revisit what I posted earlier on this subject from Commander Humes, who conducted the autopsy, and I'm going to expand that with a bit of additional, corroborative information from Commander Boswell, who assisted Humes.

I believe it's important to restate their positions and testimony before comparing it to the record from the Parkland doctors most directly involved.

In his Warren Commission testimony, Commander Humes is unequivocal about the fact that no chest tubes had been inserted (my bold emphasis throughout):

COMMANDER HUMES:
[T]hese were knife wounds, these were incised wounds on either side of the chest... . Their intention was to incise through the President's chest to place tubes into his chest.
We examined those wounds very carefully, and found that they, however, did not enter the chest cavity. They only went through the skin.
I presume that as they were performing that procedure it was obvious that the President had died, and they didn't pursue this.

He later goes on to say this about both the chest incisions and the cut-downs:

COMMANDER HUMES:
Those wounds [chest tube incisions and cut-downs] showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional.

Commander Boswell, who assisted Humes in the autopsy, entirely endorsed Humes's characterization before the Warren Commission of the superficiality of the chest tube incisions:

MR. SPECTER:
Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?

COMMANDER BOSWELL:
I have, sir; yes.

MR. SPECTER:
Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?

COMMANDER BOSWELL:
None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.

Back to Commander Humes: in his deposition before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), Humes revisits the same theme of no chest tube insertion having been done:

COMMANDER HUMES:
[T]here were a couple of small—you never heard much about this, either—a couple of small incised wounds on the chest, and I forget— I wrote down, wherever I wrote it down, that it looked to me like somebody was going to think of putting in a chest tube. But they never did, because
all they did was go through the skin
. They obviously— I imagine they decided the President was deceased before they were going to pursue it. But somebody started, apparently, to insert chest tubes, which would not be an unreasonable thing to do. They were, you know, maybe two centimeters long, something like that, and between the ribs, low in the anterior chest.

Commander Boswell also was deposed by the ARRB, and also confirms the confusion by the autopsy personnel about the superficiality of the surgical chest wounds and the cut-downs:

COMMANDER BOSWELL:
[W]hen we first started doing the autopsy, there were marks on the body that we had difficulty— They had started to do cutdowns, and
they made little incisions around the nipples, and there was no tubes or anything there
. And we didn't know whether they were actually trying to get into vessels or going to get into the chest... . [O]n his chest there were—there was
an attempt or the beginning of a surgery wound. I don't know to this day what—
I think we did learn that they had been
preparing to intubate him
... .

The consistency of the testimony of the autopsy personnel on this count seems dispositive: no chest tubes were inserted at Parkland Hospital, although superficial incisions were made just as though chest tubes were being inserted or were going to be.

This testimony stands in stark contrast to the testimony, below, of certain Parkland doctors who were involved in the treatment of John F. Kennedy, because they state that chest tubes were inserted.

Before presenting the relevant testimony by the Parkland personnel, though, I want to point out that there is no indication anywhere that any suturing or bandaging was performed to hold chest tubes in place—assuming that they ever actually had been inserted at all. Yet there is considerable testimony by observers in Trauma Room One that chest tubes had been inserted. Therefore, in the testimony that follows—from the medical personnel actually involved with the chest tubes, not mere observers—it only can be assumed that these relevant medical personnel were holding the chest tubes they refer to in place by hand.

I point this out because it opens the door to the possibility that tubes were inserted only into the superficial incisions—but not actually into the chest cavity—and held by hand, giving the illusion to others in Trauma Room One that chest tubes had been properly inserted. Of course if that were the case, it would mean willful and witting deception on the part of relevant personnel.

There is a good deal more testimony about the purported chest tubes than the excerpts I'm going to include below. In analyzing the testimony it became clear who merely was an observer—believing chest tubes had been inserted—and who actually was directly involved in activities with the purported chest tubes.

The first question I want to address is who ordered the chest tube insertion. The record is entirely consistent: it was Malcolm O. Perry—the same person who obliterated the throat wound. Perry was in charge of the proceedings from the time that he and Dr. Ronald Coy Jones arrived, together, in Trauma Room One. Here is Perry before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB):

DR. PERRY:
When I opened the neck, there was an injury to the trachea on the right lateral side. There was air and blood in that area... .
That's when I asked that a chest tube be put in place
because I didn't know how many times he'd been shot or from what direction. And, of course, the assumption was that he might have a chest wound as well... . [W]hen you start pressure-assisted respiration, if there's an injury to the lung you're liable to induce the tension pneumothorax [collapsed lung], which causes
a catastrophic cardio pulmonary collapse
[stay tuned —A.G.]
, so that's the reason I asked for chest tubes to be put in.
Dr. Jones inserted one on the left
and I guess
Paul [Dr. Paul Conrad Peters] on the right side
. It turned out those were unnecessary, but that was my request at that time. And the reason they were put in was because I asked for them.

This quote above does double duty: it identifies the source of the order for the chest tubes, and identifies at least two medical personnel involved in the purported insertion of chest tubes: Dr. Paul Peters and Dr. Ronald Coy Jones. One of those, Jones, had arrived in Trauma Room One with Perry.

Before getting to the testimony of Peters and Jones, though, Perry has more to say on this subject of the chest tubes, from his original deposition at Parkland Hospital by Specter. Here, Perry is telling Specter about a second phone call from Commander Humes on the day after the assassination and autopsy:

DR. PERRY:
Dr. Humes...called back and inquired about the chest tubes, and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. After having talked to Drs. Baxter and Peters and— I identified them as having placed it in the second interspace, anteriorly, in the midclavicular line, in the right hemithorax.

This is arresting on several counts: Perry speaks only of the right-side chest tube, and Dr. Charles Rufus Baxter has been added to personnel purportedly involved in the alleged placement of that right-side tube with Peters, in addition to Jones on the left-side tube. Here also is the apparently authoritative record being made—by Perry—that at least the right-side tube had indeed been placed in the medically appropriate location—noting, though, that Perry presents it only as hearsay from Baxter and Peters.

Therefore, in addition to Malcolm O. Perry being the person who ordered the chest tube(s), and in addition to Perry being the person who put into the record that at least one of the tubes had been properly inserted, we have three medical personnel identified as having been actively involved in the purported placement of the chest tubes, in alphabetical order:

  1. Charles Rufus Baxter
  2. Ronald Coy Jones
  3. Paul Conrad Peters

Baxter has almost nothing to say about the chest tubes in any of his testimony. In fact, the only thing found so far that he ever said about them is as follows, from his deposition at Parkland Hospital with Specter:

MR. SPECTER:
Would you have an opinion as to whether or not President Kennedy would have survived the gunshot wound which you observed in the neck?

DR. BAXTER:
We saw no evidence that it had struck anything in the neck that would not be well taken care of by simply—by the tracheotomy and chest tubes.

There is no indication from Baxter about whether the tube he was involved with was properly inserted.

Turning next to Ronald Coy Jones, who purportedly inserted the left-side chest tube, the record becomes rather strangely and carefully stated on the exact question of proper insertion (my bold emphasis):

DR. JONES:
Dr. Perry was performing the tracheotomy, and it was about this time that Dr. Baxter came in and went ahead to assist Dr. Perry with the tracheotomy, and as they made a deeper incision in the neck to isolate the trachea, they thought they saw some gush of air and the possibility of a pneumothorax [collapsed lung] on one side or the other was entertained, and since
I was to the left of the President, I went ahead and put in the anterior chest tube in the second intercostal space.

MR. SPECTER:
Was that tube fully inserted, Doctor?

DR. JONES:
I felt that the tube was fully inserted
, and this was immediately connected to underwater drainage.

"Felt that" it was fully inserted? Considering the possible consequences if it weren't—a "a catastrophic cardio pulmonary collapse," according to Perry—this seems an extraordinary backpeddle and dodge when the exact question was asked whether the tube had been fully inserted.

Jones goes on to describe what happened with the chest tube on the other side—the right side—of Kennedy:

DR. JONES:
[W]e decided to go ahead and put in a chest tube on the opposite side; since I could not reach the opposite side due to the number of people that were working on the President, Dr. Baxter was over there helping Dr. Perry on that side, as well as Dr. Paul Peters, the assistant head of urology here, and
the three of us then inserted the chest tube on the right side, primarily done by Dr. Baxter and Dr. Peters on the right side.

Jones told it this way in an interview with Larry King on CNN (with thanks to Gary Loughran for the link to the transcript):

DR. JONES:
[A]fter I put in a left chest tube and Dr. Baxter and Dr. Peters put in a right chest tube, I think that's when we hooked up the EKG machine. And all this was done within a matter of less than 10 minutes. ...I think the president's doctor [Admiral Burkley] was in there, as well as agents in there.

Although Jones no longer claims there to have participated in the right chest tube, so far the testimony is consistent in identifying Baxter, Jones, and Peters as the chest tube personnel.

And what does Peters have to say about the right-side chest tube that he purportedly worked on with Baxter? Paul Conrad Peters did not testify before the Warren Commission, only in deposition with Specter at Parkland Hospital. But his testimony has a certain chilling effect when the question of the full and proper insertion of the chest tube on his side is raised (my bold emphasis):

DR. PETERS:
Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter were doing the tracheotomy and a set of tracheotomy tubes was obtained and the appropriate size was determined and I gave it to Baxter, who helped Perry put it into the wound, and Perry noted also that there appeared to be a bubbling sensation in the chest and recommended that chest tubes be put in. Dr. Ron Jones put a chest tube in on the left side and Dr. Baxter and I put it in on the right side. I made the incision in the President's chest, and I noted that there was no bleeding from the wound.

MR. SPECTER:
Did you put that chest tube all the way in on the right side?

DR. PETERS:
That's
our presumption
—yes.

"Presumption?" And "Our presumption?" When the consequences of such tubes not being "all the way in" could be "a catastrophic cardio pulmonary collapse," the only two doctors who testified directly and with unique percipient knowledge on this matter—Jones and Peters—both used ambiguous qualifying language of "felt that" and "presumption."

And the only other doctor who might have been able to testify with unique percipient knowledge on this issue—Baxter—remained mum.

But Perry seeded the record with the illusion of both Baxter and Peters having definitively stated that the right-side tube had been properly placed—even though Baxter never made any such record of his own, and Peters, in his own testimony, hedged it as a vaguely collective "presumption."

It is simply stupefying!

It is beyond human ken that such a glaring, blatant, screamingly obvious fraud could have sat in plain sight for forty years, almost completely unnoticed and unremarked, except for a few researchers as keen as Evica.

There simply is no conclusion possible other than the freezing realization that no chest tubes ever were properly and fully inserted.

That's bad enough.

But it is to shudder in further realization that a complete sham was staged to pretend that chest tubes had been properly and fully inserted!

And it is beyond the ability to shudder in still further realization that these same personnel who perpetrated the chest tubes fraud also participated directly in the throat wound fraud (thoroughly covered in the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat), and were the same personnel who operated on Lee Harvey Oswald.

And at this point, I have to take my infamously maligned hat off in a sweeping low bow of homage to CIA and its minions and its miserable miscreant puppets—no matter what was used as strings to make them dance. Because I know of no more brilliant scheme nor gag that could be dreamed up by the mind of man than to have the world spend forty years crawling all over the wrong crime scene.

Now that, boys and girls, is a real knee-slapper.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For two years, from 1958 to 1960, Dr. Ronald Coy Jones—who worked on both Kennedy and Oswald—was in a general practice residency at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center in Oklahoma City. Also at the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine was Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, who would murder an elephant with LSD in August 1962—after Jones had left to do a residency in surgery at Parkland Hospital that ended soon after the assassination, in 1964. "Jolly" West later was assigned as the psychiatrist to examine Jack Ruby.

Jones arrived with Malcolm O. Perry in Trauma Room One on the day Kennedy was murdered. Jones assisted Perry with the tracheostomy that eradicated all evidence of the throat wound, as covered thoroughly in the thread There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat, which should be studied thoroughly. Jones also pretended to insert a chest tube into John F. Kennedy's chest, as covered in this thread. Jones also told a material lie about the source and reason for the Solu Cortef (steroids) administered to Kennedy, which lie served to mask the presence of Admiral Burkley in Trauma Room One at relevant times.

I'll mention here just briefly that on the weekend of 22-24 November 1963, when both Kennedy and Oswald died at Parkland hospital, the surgical staff at Parkland Hospital had been reduced. According to Dr. Paul Conrad Peters in a 1991 interview, "most of the guys" conveniently were in Galveston, Texas "because of a big surgical meeting down there."

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this subject matter appears to have almost died.

And, certainly being the kind of guy who likes to kick one while down.

Had whoever dreamed up this topic/subject matter (Evica) or whoever, bothered to actually check, then he would have found that Dr. Perry informed Dr. Humes that the two "chest wall" incisions were made in order to insert drainage tubes for possible subcutaneous emphysema.

Which by the way, happens to be the correct approach as well as correct medical procedure when one is placed onto positive pressure respiratory ventilation equipment and then found to have had a damaged trachea which could have forced oxygen/air into the plueral cavity. Thus inducing severe subcutaneous emphysema.

http://www.rtmagazine.com/issues/articles/2002-04_10.asp

In the hospitalized patient, certain invasive procedures can lead to the formation of a pneumothorax. These include insertion of a central venous catheter or pulmonary artery catheter via subclavian veins, thoracentesis, tracheostomy, and transbronchial biopsy during bronchoscopy. These procedures can sometimes cause an unintentional tear or hole in the pleural lining, and air leaks from the lung into the pleural space.

Positive pressure applied to the lung (as used in mechanical ventilation, intermittent positive-pressure breathing, or continuous positive airway pressure therapy) can also cause pneumothoraces if the pressure is high enough to create a leak or rupture.

Pneumothoraces are also related to injuries due to chest trauma. Chest trauma is generally categorized as either blunt trauma, such as a blow to the chest, or penetrating trauma, such as a gunshot or knife wound.

The placement of a chest tube connected to a water-sealed drainage system is the next step in treating the pneumothorax

Check that out with what was done at Parkland!

Chest tubes

The insertion point for a chest tube being used to relieve a pneumothorax is usually at the second or third intercostal space anteriorly on the midclavicular line or from the second or third down through the seventh intercostal space on the midaxillary line, with the tube directed toward the apex of the lung.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering that:

1. JFK was placed on a positive pressure breathing apparutus

2. JFK was found to have a tear in the trachea at approximately the third tracheal ring, which would have allowed subcutaneous emphysema to have developed, especially from the usage of positive pressure breathing apparatus.

3. The "Chest Tubes" for treatment for subcutaneous emphysema are inserted just under the skin into the subcutaneous tissues.

4. It was unknown at the time as to whether or not JFK had any preforations to the lungs.

Then, to a relatively high degree of probability, the medical treatment which JFK received at Parkland Hospital Emergency room was the standard accepted treatment for anyone who was found to have an injured airway which could have caused the condition known as subcutaneous emphysema to have become a medical issue.

An inserted "Chest Tube" can serve a variety of functions, base on the specific need.

1. To prevent and/or deter subcutaneous emphysema------Inserted just under the skin into subcutaneous tissues.

2. To withdraw air or fluids from the Pleural Space (that small area between the parietal pleura and the visceral pleura)*----

Inserted into that area between the two membranes.

3. To re-inflate a deflated/collapsed lung----------inserted into the lung.

*Dr. Kemp Clark, in his medical recording, stated that the chest tubes were inserted into the "plueral spaces".

However, Dr. Perry informed Dr. Humes that the chest tubes were inserted for subcutaneous emphysema.

The autopsy surgeons noted that the incisions for the chest tubes merely went into/through the skin, thus indicating fully that these were incisions for insertion of tubes for the potential of subcutaneous emphysema.

Perhaps another "rabbit hole" no longer exists.

Unless of course one has nothing better to do than dive off into something else which someone has claimed, without benefit of that much research.

P.S. Dr. Perry was at last account still living, so anyone who so desires, can probably get it directly from one who was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had whoever dreamed up this topic/subject matter (Evica) or whoever, bothered to actually check

Your arrogance, like your ignorance, knows no boundaries.

You cannot even grasp the basic issue at hand -- which is decidedly not the appropriateness of the alleged intubations. Yet you copy-and-paste endless non-sequiturs with all the purposefulness of a bear in a cage, incessantly pacing at the barred access to his next feeding.

You haven't the remotest idea of the level of research upon which the papers in question are based, yet right out of the box you arrogantly disparage what in fact is work as far beyond your comprehension as a plasma television is to a pygmy.

And it's Professor Evica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles wrote re Thomas:

Your arrogance, like your ignorance, knows no boundaries.

Nothing like a little civil discourse here. It of course promotes reasoned discussion of the issues.

With all due respect, Charles is the epitome of intellectual arrogance with his characterization of those who subscribe to the Warren-Posner-McAdams-Bugliosi view of Dallas. So IMO for Charles to call Thomas intellectually arrogant is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...