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

[Tim Gratz]

I would be interested in Charles, or Ashton's if he is still with us, substantive response to the rebuttal of Mr. Purvis.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I would be interested in Charles, or Ashton's if he is still with us, substantive response to the rebuttal of Mr. Purvis.

1. It is not a "rebuttal"!

2. It is merely stating the medical facts of the case.

3. Even some Parkland Dr's present were under the impression that the chest tubes were inserted into the pleural cavity.

5. Although not out and out stated, Dr. Perry has fully explained his concerns, which are actually medical fact:

a. Injury (tear) to the trachea

b. Induced, positive pressure/forced air breathing

c. One has automatically created a subcutaneous emphysema into the patient.

5. Prior to the tubes having been inserted, a needle was utilized (which is a correct procedure also), and the needle appeared to have withdrawn air.

6. Thus, the followup of "Chest Tubes" to assist in removal of any subcutaneous emphysema which was caused by having placed JFK on positive pressure ventilation.

7. The subcutaneous emphysema not normally being an item of critical importance, becomes such an item if there is in fact violation/injury to the pleural cavity and/or lung.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000090.htm

Tension Pneumothorax

8. Dr. Perry specifically mentioned that the chest tubes were inserted to preclude the creation of a "tension pneumothorax", which, had JFK had a lung puncture, would have most likely have begun to occur with the induced subcutaneous emphysema as a result of the positive pressure ventilation having escaped the respritory system out the tear in the trachea, and entered into the chest cavity/neck/etc.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003286.htm

Subcutaneous emphysema occurs when air gets into tissues under the skin covering the chest wall or neck. This can happen due to stabbing, gun shot wounds, other penetrations, or blunt trauma

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/121/2/647

The widely employed methods of therapy, which include placing chest tubes,1 or lacerating the skin on the anterior chest,2 are time-consuming and uncomfortable.

P.S. I personally like this "cut & paste" ability which the internet has given us.

Certainly much easier than the old "library days" when one actually had to go spend hours conducting research in order to find out something.

DR. PERRY: But I asked the chest tubes be put in because once you start pressure-assisted respiration, if he had a chest tube he might have a tension pneumothorax. And not knowing the extent of his head injury with any certainty, as Dr. Jones said, we didn't look at that. We were busy trying to get an airway. And so as it turned out, the chest tubes were not necessary. There was no injury to the chest cavity, but I didn't know that at the time.

when you start pressure-assisted respiration, if there's an injury to the lung you're liable to induce the tension pneumothorax, which causes a catastrophic cardio pulmonary collapse, so that's the reason I asked for chest tubes to be put in.

[Charles Drago]

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.

What you reference is not a "view." It -- the LN lie -- is a demonstrably false interpretation of events, one that, if embraced by a person who should know better based upon reasonable access to relevant evidence, indicates that said person is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime under investigation.

My assertion is not a reflection of intellectual arrogance, but rather a reasoned, eloquent, and irrefutable distillation of the observable truth.

You meant no respect, sir, so your respect is neither due nor noted.

Duly noted, however, is your confusion of Purvis's non sequiturs with a cogent response to the issues raised by the original intubation papers.

I would be interested in your response to ...

No. That was disingenuous.

I haven't the slightest interest in your response to just about anything.

Charles

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

What you reference is not a "view." It -- the LN lie -- is a demonstrably false interpretation of events, one that, if embraced by a person who should know better based upon reasonable access to relevant evidence, indicates that said person is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime under investigation.

My assertion is not a reflection of intellectual arrogance, but rather a reasoned, eloquent, and irrefutable distillation of the observable truth.

You meant no respect, sir, so your respect is neither due nor noted.

Duly noted, however, is your confusion of Purvis's non sequiturs with a cogent response to the issues raised by the original intubation papers.

I would be interested in your response to ...

No. That was disingenuous.

I haven't the slightest interest in your response to just about anything.

Charles

"indicates that said person is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime under investigation."

Personally, I would like to see some "original work", as this (cognitivelly impaired) term was long ago worn out by another who also did not do his homework on the subject matter.

P.S. Anyone who fell for "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" is most certainly intellectually impaired!

[Charles Drago]

Personally, I would like to see some "original work", as this (cognitivelly impaired) term was long ago worn out by another who also did not do his homework on the subject matter.

I am indebted to a friend for passing along observations that prompt the following request:

Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all.

In the mean, best of luck in your competition with Gratz for the "D. B. Cooper Thread Hijacking Award."

I note as an aside that the Single Bullet Theory accurately may be described as "original work."

Charles

[Charles Drago]

Time's up, Purvis.

So!

Whatever they're paying you, it's too much.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Time's up, Purvis.

So!

Whatever they're paying you, it's too much.

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

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029b.htm

"Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on Nov. 23, 1963, developes the following information"

"Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to control possible sub-cutaneous emphysema".

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

It would appear that someone did not do their "reading assignment" prior to insertion of foot into mouth, and still did not do it even after having been informed of the subject matter.

[Charles Drago]

Not referenced in relation to tubes.

"combat," not "control"

End your non-sequiturs, demonstrate that you grasp the deeper meanings of the subject under discussion, and contribute.

Got more?

Edited November 6, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Still nothing?

Well, let's see if you can be helped along toward a focused, reasoned grasp of this thread's deep themes.

Instead of citing Humes' second set of handwritten notes in which the "subcutaneous emphysema" is nothing more than hearsy concerning what Perry allegedly said on the phone, let's look at the testimony.

Perry Warren Commission Testimony:

DR. PERRY:

I asked someone to put in

a chest tube

to allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be

accumulated in the right hemithorax

[half of the chest]

[/

b]. ...Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of urology, and Dr.

Charles Baxter, previously noted in this record,

inserted the

chest tube and attached it to underwater seal for drainage of the

right pneumothorax

[sic: probably "hemithorax"]

. ...Since

the morbidity attendant upon insertion of an anterior chest tube for

sealed drainage is negligible and the morbidity which attends a

pneumothorax is considerable,

I elected to have the chest tube put

in place because we were giving him positive pressure oxygen and the

possibility of inducing a tension pneumothorax

[completly

collapsed lung from air entering but not leaving the pleural space

around lungs]

would be quite high

in such instances.

MR. SPECTER:

What is pneumothorax?

DR. PERRY:

...

[P]neumothorax would be air in the free chest

cavity

underlying collapse of the lungs. ...

MR. SPECTER:

What was the content of the second conversation

which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?

DR. PERRY:

The second conversation was in regard to the

placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity

.[/

indent]

Perry Deposition With Specter:

MR. SPECTER:

Dr. Perry, was the chest tube inserted in

the President's chest abandoned or was that operation or operative

procedure completed?

DR. PERRY:

The chest tube, to be placed there, was

supposedly placed into the pleural cavity

. However, I have

knowledge that it was not.

MR. SPECTER:

And what was the reason for its not being placed

into the plueral cavity?

DR. PERRY:

I did not speak with certainty

[sic]

but at

that point I think that we were at the end of the procedure and they

just did not continue with it.

Perry ARRB Testimony:

DR. PERRY:

I asked the chest tubes be put in because

once you start pressure-assisted respiration, if he had a chest tube—

He might have a

tension pneumothorax

. ...[W]hen you start

pressure-assisted respiration, if there's an injury to the lung

you're

liable to induce the tension pneumothorax

, which causes

a

catastrophic cardiopulmonary collapse

, so

that's the

reason I asked for chest tubes to be put in

.

Jones Warren Commission Testimony:

DR. JONES:

[T]hey thought they saw some gush of air

and the

possibility of a pneumothorax

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

.

Jenkins Warren Commission Testimony:

DR. JENKINS:

Dr. Peters—because of the appearance of

the right chest, the

obvious physical characteristics of a

pneumothorax

—put in a

closed chest drainage chest tube

.[/

indent]

Perry Deposition With Specter:

DR. McCLELLAND:

One of the tubes, I believe, was

placed by Dr. Peters. The other one, I'm not right certain, I don't

really recall— I perhaps better not say. ...

The reason this was

done

was because it was felt that there was probably quite

possibly a mediastinal injury with

perhaps suffusion of blood and

air into one or both

pleural cavities

.

In an article,

"Subcutaneous emphysema

associated with chest tube drainage," the Conclusion states in

pertinent part.

Subcutaneous emphysema can be spontaneous or traumatic,

but is associated with avoidable causes such as

inadequate chest

tube drainage, particularly due to poor tube placement, anchorage and

blockage

, and also with side-port migration into the subcutaneous

tissue.

Again, thanks to two good friends for guidance -- and then some.

[Tim Gratz]

Charles wrote:

I haven't the slightest interest in your response to just about anything.

Given your intellectual arrogance, do you think that surprises me one whit?

Please state whether you believe the following persons are "cognitively impaired" (one by one, please):

Norman Mailer

Vincent Bugliosi

Professor John McAdams

Unless you answer that they are, I can then confidently assume you believe they are "complicit in the crime". In other words, I assume you mean that although they are arguing the LN position, they actually believe there was a conspiracy and therefore their disingenuous arguments obstruct the search for the truth. Please state your basis for asserting they are lying.

I note that VB is about your mirror image. He asserts no reasonable person can believe in a conspiracy.

In my opinion, reasonable minds do differ on the conspiracy issue, although it is also my opinion that a reasonable mind should conclude a conspiracy.

[Charles Drago]

My responses in red.

Charles wrote:

I haven't the slightest interest in your response to just about anything.

Given your intellectual arrogance, do you think that surprises me one whit?

Given your intellectual failings, who is to say?

Please state whether you believe the following persons are "cognitively impaired" (one by one, please):

Who died and made you commisar?

Norman Mailer

Vincent Bugliosi

Professor John McAdams

Unless you answer that they are, I can then confidently assume you believe they are "complicit in the crime".

As is so often the case, your intellectual failings do you in. Re-read my statement. There is a third alternative. Although I don't believe that, with the possible exception of Mailer, it applies to the individuals you refrence.

In other words, I assume you mean that although they are arguing the LN position, they actually believe there was a conspiracy and therefore their disingenuous arguments obstruct the search for the truth.

There is no foundation in logic for your assertion that I say they are lying. In point of fact, since I cannot speak to their respective degrees of cognitive impairment, if any, I cannot rule out dain bramage ... er, brain damage. I have no doubt that, in the cases of Bugliosi and McAdams, access to the evidence has been reasonable.

Please state your basis for asserting they are lying.

Please re-read my original statement.

I note that VB is about your mirror image. He asserts no reasonable person can believe in a conspiracy.

There is reason to believe that Bugliosi's pose was concocted in response to my own position and similar points of view that have been published in various print and electronic media.

In my opinion, reasonable minds do differ on the conspiracy issue, although it is also my opinion that a reasonable mind should conclude a conspiracy.

Now we arrive at the core of the disease. You and others of like mind would have us mired in uncertainty and debate ad infinitum. Thus we discover the basis for the cover-up: The conspirators understood that they had no chance whatsoever to prevent the raising of questions by citizen investigators regarding the official LN lie. So they brilliantly encouraged those questions, provided conflicting answers, and in the process virtually immunized themselves against discovery and prosecution and punishment.

To the degree that you and others aid and abet the cover-up with your "reasonable minds do differ on the conspiracy issue" idiocy, you stand as accessories after the fact -- witting or otherwise.

I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Where do you fit in, Timmy?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Being somewhat weak in certain character traits, I just could not resist this one.

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

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.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Bergen

The head went on a puppet named Charlie!

With that out of the way, one should proceed on with this, as it represents an important demonstration of the complete lack of research into the JFK assassination, as well as a generally complete lack of research.

And thusly, represents an important element of what anyone entering the rabbit hole maze should be on the lookout for.

[Charles Drago]

You missed your calling.

Where's Ed Sullivan when we need him?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Being somewhat weak in certain character traits, I just could not resist this one.

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

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.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Bergen

The head went on a puppet named Charlie!

With that out of the way, one should proceed on with this, as it represents an important demonstration of the complete lack of research into the JFK assassination, as well as a generally complete lack of research.

And thusly, represents an important element of what anyone entering the rabbit hole maze should be on the lookout for.

1. Failure to properly research subject matter:

Prior to launching their "ship of fools", many persons fail to adequately research the subject matter of their perceived destination.

"Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all."

"Time's up, Purvis."

Personally, I was not aware that there was any time limit imposed onto the search for knowledge.

"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."

Well! 1996 to present!

Were I to set a "time limit", then I would suppose that the "ship of fools" has been sailing around lost for a considerable length of time, when in fact the answer to which way to go was quite easy to be found by anyone who had even bothered to read.

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

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029b.htm

"Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on Nov. 23, 1963, developes the following information"

"Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to combat possible sub-cutaneous emphysema".

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

It would appear that someone did not do their "reading assignment" prior to insertion of foot into mouth, and still did not do it even after having been informed of the subject matter.

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

Now! Irrelevant as to whether or not JFK did or did not suffer from subcutaneous emphysema as a result of some "unknown" reason, the fact remains that this condition, as indicated, represents an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF INFORMATION, which our learned researchers not only did not find, but also completely ignored.

Of course, there is always the "don't confuse me with the facts" syndrome .

"Instead of citing Humes' second set of handwritten notes in which the "subcutaneous emphysema" is nothing more than hearsy concerning what Perry allegedly said on the phone, let's look at the testimony."

Which frequently encompasses such items as "It does not exist", as well as "If it does exist, then it is hearsay".

[Thomas H. Purvis]

BUMP

1. Failure to properly research subject matter:

Prior to launching their "ship of fools", many persons fail to adequately research the subject matter of their perceived destination.

"Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all."

"Time's up, Purvis."

Personally, I was not aware that there was any time limit imposed onto the search for knowledge.

"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."

Well! 1996 to present!

Were I to set a "time limit", then I would suppose that the "ship of fools" has been sailing around lost for a considerable length of time, when in fact the answer to which way to go was quite easy to be found by anyone who had even bothered to read.

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

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029b.htm

"Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on Nov. 23, 1963, developes the following information"

"Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to combat possible sub-cutaneous emphysema".

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

It would appear that someone did not do their "reading assignment" prior to insertion of foot into mouth, and still did not do it even after having been informed of the subject matter.

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

Now! Irrelevant as to whether or not JFK did or did not suffer from subcutaneous emphysema as a result of some "unknown" reason, the fact remains that this condition, as indicated, represents an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF INFORMATION, which our learned researchers not only did not find, but also completely ignored.

Of course, there is always the "don't confuse me with the facts" syndrome .

"Instead of citing Humes' second set of handwritten notes in which the "subcutaneous emphysema" is nothing more than hearsy concerning what Perry allegedly said on the phone, let's look at the testimony."

Which frequently encompasses such items as "It does not exist", as well as "If it does exist, then it is hearsay".