This message was self-deleted by its author

[laserhaas]

This message was self-deleted by its author (laserhaas) on Thu Feb 15, 2018, 06:18 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[bettyellen]

1. I cannot believe they did surgery and did not diagnose the kidney. WatF is this website?

[laserhaas]

35. The website is not the story.

The dynamics are the issue

[Hortensis]

181. I don't believe this story as styled.* Wait for

the post-investigation versions.

*Didn't read the whole article, the initial slant of toddler kidnapped away from reasonable parents and attacked by knife-and-drain-tube-wielding surgeons too highly unlikely to bother.

Regarding the mention of cancer (if it happened), if a physician ever really does say you probably have cancer BEFORE pathology results are available (not often!), you can be sure that doc feels pretty damned sure already,and probably other professionals already consulted with.

[csziggy]

77. I had a kidney removed without a definite diagnosis

According to the figures I found through research, 80% of all masses on kidneys are cancer. Taking a biopsy of a kidney is about as invasive as re-secting (removing part of it) or removing it. With today's methods kidney removal can be done with extremely small incisions.

In my case, the decision to not wait was a good one - in fact, the trans arterial valve replacement I had was allowed and expedited because of the concern about the mass on my kidney. The CT scan that showed the mass measured it at about 4 x 4.5 cm. By the time they removed it six weeks later it was half again as large. Because of the location on the kidney they could not re-sect and had to take the entire kidney.

The biggest danger with a mass on a kidney is that it will spread to other organs. So long as it is confined to one kidney or part of a kidney it can be quickly removed.

This information pertains to the research I did for my own case - kidney masses in a young child may be very different. I am not a doctor, just a self informed patient.

[JNelson6563]

79. Good post.

I didn't know any of this. Thanks for taking the time to post. Glad you had a happy ending.

[csziggy]

80. Thank you

I was very lucky - if I had not been trying to get into a clinical trial for the trans arterial valve replacement (TAVR), the kidney mass would not have been found so early. I was completely asymptomatic.

And if they had not found the mass, it probably would have metastasized.

As it turned out I got the TAVR and got the kidney out in time. Extreme luck!

[LisaL]

87. From what I can gather, kidney masses in young children are likely cancerous as well.

It's probably why doctors wanted to remove it ASAP. Chances are, the tumor was cancerous and it can spread to other organs.

[bettyellen]

156. In the video, the woman says its stage four cancer and that they have no diagnosis-

She seems to think she has time for a third opinion in Mexico after having flew the kid to L.A. for a second opinion. She did a whole other video where she’s trying to blame the hospital for extortion when it’s she who insists they move the kid to another state at a high cost.

They had no insurance, no present address and no job and the mother didn’t seem to realize she cannot dictate the “size of the scar” or just take her kid and run off when they think it’s a life or death medical emergency. She basically didn’t understand they couldn’t give her a full prognosis without doing the surgery or that things change once you open up a patient. Honestly, she handled it as bad as can be. She’s almost incoherent in her videos, and that’s okay- except she is trying to disregard the doctors and manage the surgery herself. Not good.

[pnwmom]

164. The article says this:

Leah and Chris are thankful that the surgeon at UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital did not remove their daughter’s kidney yesterday, even though that was the hospital’s plan. Doctors did a biopsy during the surgery, but the parents say that could have been done as a minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery rather than the major surgery which has left a scar across her entire belly.

If it's stage 4 cancer, why didn't the doctors remove the kidney? And if they just needed a biopsy, why didn't they do the less invasive surgery?

And thinking more about this, the doctors can't say it's stage 4 cancer BEFORE a biopsy! No wonder the parents are objecting.

The reason the parents flew to LA is because that's where they LIVE and have a support system, and that's where they'd want to be for further treatment and recovery.

[bettyellen]

170. Since the mass was large they were preparing the family for the likihood of removal- there is also

Talk about spots on her lung- so it sounds like they had good reason fear it was spreading quickly. Not a good time to wait days shuffling the kid to a third opinion in Mexico. She also talked about bringing the kid home to die- so no treating it and alt medicine were both admittedly on her mind. But meanwhile she was eating precious time trying to get her a medical flight to LA without paying, and then a second trip to Mexico. I got the impression she was maybe just going to take the kid home, wherever that was, and let whatever happened happen.

[pnwmom]

176. It's a 4 hour drive between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, which would have been faster

than flying on a plane. She wouldn't have needed some special medical flight. She was in good shape before the surgery, except for the strange lump.

The Las Vegas doctor clearly didn't trust them -- but that doesn't mean he was right.

[bettyellen]

180. Youre skipping over the part where they get to LA and they still do not want surgery thats been

recomended by the second opinion. They wanted a third opinion from some quack in Mexico. Ultimately it seems like they might have decided no treatment or alternative medicine. In Las Vegas they talked about taking her home to die. You think they’d allow a biopsy in Mexico after refusing surgery twice? Why are they working with people who lie about their story?

[pnwmom]

185. They didn't want the open surgery without a biopsy first. And they were shocked to see

that the surgery had already been scheduled by the receiving doctor.

I think they should have been able to choose their own doctor in Los Angeles. I know I would have been infuriated if this had happened to me. I have dealt with serious medical issues for myself and family members, and never had a particular doctor forced on me.

Without having more facts -- like not knowing if blood and other tests had already been done -- I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the parents were lying.

[bettyellen]

186. But they didnt want another American doctor. And there was a biopsy done but they claim they still

Don’t have pathology reports or a diagnosis? And you believe that? They lied and said the hospital was starving the child. They talked about refusing chemo and taking the kid home to die before they had a biopsy done.
I don’t blame CPS for stepping in instead of allowing them to drive off god knows where next. They were delaying urgent treatment.

[pnwmom]

188. I don't blame them for not trusting American doctors after what they'd been put through.

The husband has relatives in Mexico and the doctor they wanted her to see there was a pediatric oncologist.

The family has consulted with Dr. Sami Espinoza, a pediatric oncologist in Mexico, where Christopher has relatives. She questions the wisdom of removing the kidney:

There is no way to diagnose cancer without the proper tests.

If there is no proof of cancer, he [the doctor] can’t diagnose cancer.

Dr. Espinoza called the Director of UCLA Health the night before Grace’s surgery to request Grace’s records and to request a transfer.

[bettyellen]

194. She lied about what they put her through . They needed to make sure that kid was going to a doctor

And getting treatment. Considering the Mom was already publicly talking about “taking her home to die” among familiy, and bemoaning the cost of that more than anything to do with the child’s health- they had a right to believe the mom was seemingly resistant to getting any medical care and would only transfer the kid through official transport. Otherwise they’d be allowing her to take the kid home to die when time was of the essence. Is that okay with you?
She wasn’t going to suddenly love the idea of surgery in Mexico. And go for it when they were flipping the hell out over 9K. And delaying things weeks to do so is unconscionable. That she doesn’t understand the “proof of cancer” comes w surgery, that she doesn’t get to order up surgery on her terms only, doesn’t mitigate that. She doesn’t know best here, and endangered her child.

[pnwmom]

206. How do you know she lied? That's the same thing people were saying

about Justina Pelletier's case -- and it turned out the hospital was in the wrong.

And why should they have to pay $9,000 for a medical helicopter when the drive in their car to LA would have been FASTER? The girl hadn't had surgery yet and didn't need special medical attention on the drive.

The doctor had just decided not to trust them -- but we don't know who was in the wrong: the doctor or the parents.

[bettyellen]

211. When they talked about taking her home to die is when you trust thats exactly what they might do.

That’s about the only thing the mom said that I believe. That and her fixation over a few thousand dollars.

[laserhaas]

215. Concur...Nothing was imminent death threatening

We need updates on status

[bettyellen]

286. Its spread to her lungs as they suspected. So any delay in treatment was dangerous. They believe

- after consulting 13 new doctors!- in the original diagnosis.

[VivienneLove]

348. But why....

...did the doctors wait? Wasn't she flown out to LA right away? Since the state got custody of the daughter why didn't they operate right away. You seem to have inside knowledge. Or maybe I should read the comment before this.

[bettyellen]

351. The mom delayed it moving to LA, and maybe they were better surgeons there but she didnt want to go

Right into surgery in LA as the second opinion advised.
She was arguing about the type of surgery- and wanted a third opinion in Mexico. So the headline is totally deceiving. It was her wanting to leave the second hospital that caused CPS to step in. And they were afraid it was this type of tumor that could spread quickly to the other kidney and lungs- and it appears that’s exactly what happened.

[VivienneLove]

352. Makes no sense

Unless one really wants to be in LA and take off with their baby with no free healthcare. That IS quite negligent for a woman whose first child drowned in a bathtub at four months old.

[bettyellen]

353. I think she was upset the cancer might be advanced and demanded proof of cancer

Before they cut her open. Somehow the lump she noticed and the cat scan of a huge tumor wasn’t enough.
She talks about taking the kid home to die in California. And alternative medicine. And smaller surgical scars. She was broke, and very very confused and making weird videos accusing the hospitals of extortion and collusion. Not a great situation for the kid.

[VivienneLove]

354. Right in the video

She mentions Stage 4 cancer and automatically assumes it's fatal and to spend her...last days?...with family or something. Shock probably had to do with that reaction, but assuming the mother did research on the subject before the second opinion she would have been more informed on the treatment options and survival rates...unless it was a "nuisance" to deal with. Absolutely astounding and sad for the both of them. I really hope the child survives this despite the mother's lunacy 😑

[bettyellen]

355. Its unfortunate those asshole latched on to her and encouraged her to defame the doctors. They

Exploited her fears and paranoia. I think there’s a ton of narcissism there, and I can’t blame CPS for stepping in to end her doctor shopping and exploiting that kids illness with her crazy videos.

[LisaL]

197. Well, of course you can't diagnose cancer unless you do a biopsy.

But in case of kidney tumors, majority are cancerous. So presumably the earlier its removed, the better, to prevent cancer from spreading. If this child has cancer, it sounds like it already spread.

[pnwmom]

218. But they had the girl OPENED UP already and decided not to take it out.

If they really thought it was cancer, they wouldn't have just left it there -- even if they thought it had spread. Not with her already opened up.

The reason they opened her up was to take out the kidney. So why would they put her through all that and just leave a cancerous kidney in?

Surgery is the main treatment for most kidney cancers. The chances of surviving kidney cancer without having surgery are small.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/kidney-cancer/treating/surgery.html

Even people whose cancer has spread to other organs may benefit from surgery to take out the kidney tumor. Removing the kidney containing the cancer can help some people live longer, so a doctor may suggest surgery even if the cancer has spread beyond the kidney. Kidney removal can also be used to ease symptoms such as pain and bleeding.

Depending on the stage and location of the cancer and other factors, surgery might be done to remove either the cancer along with some of the surrounding kidney tissue (known as a partial nephrectomy), or the entire kidney (known as a radical nephrectomy). The adrenal gland (the small gland that sits on top of each kidney) and fatty tissue around the kidney is sometimes removed as well.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

195. Doing a biopsy on a Wilms tumor is a bad idea.

The tumor can be diagnosed with some certainty by imaging and and clinical examination.

The risk is a biopsy spreading what might have been a stage 1 contained cancer. Removing the kidney and leaving the child with one kidney is less risky -- 1% life time chance of renal failure.

If they opened her up and left both kidneys they probably saw both kidneys and the abdomen wall involved. At that point their only choice is chemo and radiation. Saving both kidneys is important at that point.

Surgical Examination and Biopsy
Histopathologic confirmation of Wilms tumor is essential. In North America, patients with suspected Wilms tumor undergo nephrectomy immediately (see the image below). During this procedure, the contralateral kidney is explored to ensure that the disease is indeed unilateral, and lymph node biopsy samples are obtained for staging purposes. Lymph node dissection is not indicated. (Immediate nephrectomy is not performed in patients with bilateral disease at presentation, when sparing of the renal tissue becomes important.)
Gross nephrectomy specimen shows a Wilms tumor pus

In contrast to immediate surgery, most European centers make a presumptive diagnosis of Wilms tumor based on imaging findings alone. Clinicians in Europe prefer to administer chemotherapy before nephrectomy without survival compromise. [25, 26]
Transcutaneous biopsy is not usually recommended and may in fact complicate treatment by causing preoperative tumor spill, requiring whole abdominal radiotherapy.

[LisaL]

198. Yea, I don't think it's good news that they didn't remove the kidney or the tumor when they opened

the child up.

[bettyellen]

214. It seems the mom wanted a guaranteed result before committing to surgery ...

And no one gets that. I don’t know why she didn’t get that it was urgent, but going on to a third opinion sounds like she was never going to allow it.

[pnwmom]

224. But the surgeon, AFTER he opened her up, decided not to remove the kidney.

Isn't there some likelihood that once he saw it he decided it wasn't Wilms after all -- and that's why he biopsied it instead?

[laserhaas]

231. Many - proper - questions

Time will tell

[Hassin Bin Sober]

233. The other kidney and abdominal wall are inspected and reviewed during the surgery...

If both kidneys are involved they leave both kidneys in tact in hopes of saving as much renal tissue as possible.

That's most likely what happened.

At this point an interoperative examination of the tissue is done ( as Tumor spillage is now a moot point). Then a chemo and radiation plan is mapped out based on the exact typing of the cancer.

I think the family, and people here, are getting hung up on doing the surgery without a biopsy. Everyone assumes every cancer gets a biopsy. That's how it's done with these types of cancer. In fact a person who has a biopsy gets automatically bumped from stage 1 to stage 3 and has to undergo abdominal radiation they may not have needed if the stage one cancer was removed in tact with the kidney.
------------------------
Here's how it goes:

Imaging and clinical examination leads to a diagnosis of a Wilms Tumor

No biopsy is done in hopes the cancer hasn't spread. (Assuming imaging doesn't show both kidneys involved)

Resection of the kidney is the best course of action.

During surgery the other kidney and abdominal wall are inspected for evidence of cancer. If eveidence of cancer shows up in the other kidney, the removal is called off as retention of any healthy renal tissue is now paramount. Now chemo and radiation is the only option.

If no other involvement is found during surgery, the affected kidney is removed and tested outside the body for malignancy.

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

The best thing this kid could have hoped for would have been the removal of a non cancerous kidney and some doctors with egg on their faces.

The next best would be a removal of the kidney with a completely contained tumor not ruptured by biopsy, inadvertent surgical spillage, or naturally rupturing on it's own.

The least favorable is the surgeon finding bilateral involvement and closing her back up with now two cancerous kidneys. Now she is in for a lot of chemo and radiation.

The prognosis doesn't sound good.

[pnwmom]

235. What I hated the most here was seeing so many people, based on so few facts,

piling on the mother and calling her a liar. She was facing the shock of a life threatening diagnosis for her child. I think some people here were much too harsh and judgmental (I'm not including you in that group, by the way.)

Based on my knowledge of that particular state, I ALSO would have wanted to get my sick child back to a major hospital in my own city and not have anything done in Nevada.

FWIW, she is happier with the care they are now getting in LA. The article in the OP is outdated.


Here is a Facebook post from about a week ago, after moving to the LA hospital.

But don't worry she is receiving the standard of care of any other academic center in the country. Let's just trust these fellows and nurses that they are helping Grace the best they actually know how, and respect the process, People!

[Dorian Gray]

347. educational post

thank you for this!

I don't know what to think here. But my heart goes out to the child.

[LisaL]

234. And they are reportedly giving the child chemo-why? Just for fun?

[pnwmom]

237. The mother is comfortable now with the better care the daughter is getting in LA.

I know Nevada and I don't blame the parents at all for wanting to get out of there and not instantly trusting the doctor in LA that the NV doctor hooked them up with. I'd have wanted to get my child back to Seattle ASAP, if I were in that mother's situation.


This is a Facebook post from about a week ago, after moving to the LA hospital.

But don't worry she is receiving the standard of care of any other academic center in the country. Let's just trust these fellows and nurses that they are helping Grace the best they actually know how, and respect the process, People!

[sharedvalues]

327. +100 This is the key info

[pnwmom]

162. Except the doctors opened her up and then decided NOT to remove the kidney!

If they were just going to biopsy, then why didn't they do the simpler procedure?

Leah and Chris are thankful that the surgeon at UCLA Mattel Children’s Hospital did not remove their daughter’s kidney yesterday, even though that was the hospital’s plan. Doctors did a biopsy during the surgery, but the parents say that could have been done as a minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery rather than the major surgery which has left a scar across her entire belly.

[bettyellen]

167. They wanted to delay biopsy for a third opinion in Mexico. LA was the second opinion.

So the parents are lying about that. I’m pretty sure they are lying about the hospital starving the kid too. And it’s been weeks now, and they claim they have no definitive diagnosis after the biopsy? It maybe their confusion, but the bulk of their story is crazy. They demanded a proof of cancer before allowing a biopsy at all? And wanted to take off to Mexico rather than do urgent surgery. The mom sounds like a mess who shouldn’t be trying to micro manage the surgeons. It’s sad, but it’s not close to what the headline claims.

[pnwmom]

168. No. The parents wanted proof of cancer before removing the kidney.

They thought the biopsy should have been done through a smaller incision -- and so do I. The problem is that Las Vegas hospital might not have had doctors qualified to do that surgery, but the Los Angeles hospital would have. It's easier just to make a huge cut and take the whole kidney out, so that's what the Las Vegas doctor wanted to do.

The best doctors don't practice in Nevada or most small rural states. I wouldn't trust them, either.

[Codeine]

169. Biopsying that sort of cancer can be very dangerous.

That’s already been addressed elsewhere in this thread.

[bettyellen]

171. I thought it was obvious the mass was so large they felt removal would likely be needed

And the mom had a very hard time understanding why they couldn’t predict everything beforehand. She makes a lot of conflicting statements and seems to lack resources or understanding to cope. A third opinion in Mexico? Yeah, the story as published is bullshit. As is the part where they have no biopsy results after weeks. Sad confused Mom.

[Codeine]

172. I have zero sympathy for the mom.

This whole thing is being used as a way to build publicity for her half-assed musical career.

[bettyellen]

175. And whoever wrote it is lying about the hospital and claiming theyre human trafficking and

Experimenting on babies. The mom didn’t have enough sense to figure out she was dealing with those crackpots and she casts shade on certified surgeons in two states?
I’m convinced she was taking the girl home to die as she said in the video. Sadly, a lot of it was a cost/ benefit analysis and they don’t want to admit that, because things didn’t look good for the kid.

[pnwmom]

226. Wow, way to be judgmental. She has a child who could have cancer

and that's your reaction.

[laserhaas]

232. I think most of the hateful banter, is due to the fact

I'm the posting party.

[pnwmom]

192. Obviously not, since the UCLA hospital decided not to remove the kidney after all. n/t

[LisaL]

200. I really don't think that's good news.

I am guessing it might have been inoperable at that point already.

[pnwmom]

202. Inoperable? Why? My father had kidney cancer, they diagnosed it, and then removed it.

Why would they leave a cancerous kidney?

[LisaL]

203. Take a wild guess.

Why do you think they left it? Their plan was to remove it, then they didn't.

[bettyellen]

208. It had spread already? Or worse, they feared mom would sue them?

I know my moms doctor did it wasn’t unusual for a hospital to ignore a DNR if there was family around contesting it. That happened with my mom/ her sister would have used any means necessary to revive my poor suffering mom.
This mom seems like she was more interested in suing them than her child health. Money seemed more important to her.

[LisaL]

210. That's what I am thinking.

Maybe it spread and couldn't be done anymore.
Or they are really worried about parents not wanting this kidney removed. But my understanding at that time child was in state's custody so they didn't need parental permission?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

219. Was your father's cancer in both kidneys?

It sounds like this kid has both kidneys involved

[LisaL]

256. That would make sense, wouldn't it?

Last edited Sun Feb 11, 2018, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

One kidney can be removed without serious consequences for health of the child. Both kidneys can not be removed. Another possibility, by that time tumor was too large to be removed.
"If the tumor is too large to be removed, or if it has an abnormal appearance on CT or MRI scans, the surgeon will only perform a biopsy."
https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/wilms-tumor-childhood/diagnosis

[pnwmom]

193. But UCLA didn't take out the kidney, once they opened her up.

They just did the biopsy.

[bettyellen]

196. And the parents claim weekend later not to know biopsy results. Liars.

[LisaL]

294. The protocol calls for removal unless the tumor is discovered to be inoperable.

Then the protocol is to do biopsy, use chemo to shrink the tumor for 6-8 weeks, then do removal. So its not good news that they couldn't remove it.

[bettyellen]

173. She only ran into trouble trying to stop the surgery in LA though. She wanted to go to Mexico.

And that’s when she ran into trouble. In the video she talks about stage four and taking the kid home to die w family. So was she really going to allow a biopsy in Mexico after refusing twice? I do t believe so.

[pnwmom]

209. The mother was shocked when she got to LA and saw that they had already arranged

for an open surgery without consulting with the parents. Parents are supposed to have to consent. The doctors should have explained why that surgery was necessary and not a biopsy through a smaller incision.

And it turned out that the open surgery wasn't necessary -- because they didn't remove the kidney after all.

[bettyellen]

220. You assume the doctors didnt explain? And that the surgery was successful? Nope and nope.

They explained and she balked again and instead asked for a transfer to another country. And it’s likely that the tumor had spread and they had to do chemo instead.

But mom is hiding the biopsy results why now? They didn’t give them to her either? Do you actually believe that’s what they do at UCLA? Nope.

[pnwmom]

221. Once they had her opened up, there was no reason not to remove the kidney IF she had cancer.

But if they thought maybe it was a healthy kidney, that would have been a reason not to take it out.

Why do you say the mom is hiding the biopsy results?


https://www.cancer.org/cancer/kidney-cancer/treating/surgery.html

Surgery is the main treatment for most kidney cancers. The chances of surviving kidney cancer without having surgery are small.

Even people whose cancer has spread to other organs may benefit from surgery to take out the kidney tumor. Removing the kidney containing the cancer can help some people live longer, so a doctor may suggest surgery even if the cancer has spread beyond the kidney. Kidney removal can also be used to ease symptoms such as pain and bleeding.

Depending on the stage and location of the cancer and other factors, surgery might be done to remove either the cancer along with some of the surrounding kidney tissue (known as a partial nephrectomy), or the entire kidney (known as a radical nephrectomy). The adrenal gland (the small gland that sits on top of each kidney) and fatty tissue around the kidney is sometimes removed as well.

[bettyellen]

223. So you and Mom know better than the surgeons at UCLA and taking the kid home to die is their right?

Most people who’ve been through this know they don’t know what’s going to happen in cancer surgery till they see how much it is spread. Andy thought he’d get a small tumor removed and they ended up chasing it all over his body including the lymph nodes. Things can change swiftly when cancers spread. This woman endangered her child by delaying treatment. And now she lies and says she doesn’t even know biopsy results? Come on now- you know she is lying about that.
The surgery didn’t seem to go well and the delay she cause could kill her daughter. She’s not admitting the diaganosis to try and make the doctors seem stupider than she is. That’s not possible. She’s already slandered them with lies, she is not a credible witness.

[pnwmom]

225. No, I don't. But I'm not going to join the pile-on on the mother. The mother did NOT endanger

the child by just insisting on moving her to LA for treatment -- a 4 hour drive from Las Vegas, and with a much, much, better hospital.

Maybe the doctors were right -- but WE don't know. We hardly know any facts at all, so in that situation, I think it's wrong to call the mother a liar.

[bettyellen]

227. The mom is lying about not having a diagnosis and we know that much.

Certainly lying about them starving her baby too.
If the biopsy was weeks ago and they are treating her there IS a diagnosis and results.

[pnwmom]

229. No, she isn't. They couldn't have a firm diagnosis till her lungs had been biopsied,

and that clearly hadn't happened as of the date of that article.

You are being so HARSH. Don't you understand how panicked and sad these parents must be -- and then to have the threat of losing custody? To call the mother a liar, based on the little any of us know, seems downright mean.

This is what the mother said on her FB page a week ago, by the way. And everything she has said since then has also been positive about the care the daughter is getting.

But don't worry she is receiving the standard of care of any other academic center in the country. Let's just trust these fellows and nurses that they are helping Grace the best they actually know how, and respect the process, People!

[laserhaas]

236. Agree....

She, apparently, is staying a mu-as-mom.

But she is being positive

[bettyellen]

241. She said she knew nothing despite the biopsy of her kidney. And thats bullshit.

That she is changing her tune now doesn’t surprise me. At best she sounds very confused and passing along nonsense as facts.

That she was talking about taking the kid home to die before having a biopsy is deeply disturbing- and it’s no wonder you don’t have anything to say about that.

[pnwmom]

244. I didn't listen to the whole video so I don't know the context, but they were clearly trying to

scare her into staying in Nevada instead of getting better care in UCLA. If I were her, I'd have had trouble trusting them or anyone connected to them.

But maybe it's because I've had more experience with bad medical care in NV than you have. Let's just say, the best doctors don't usually end up in the states with the worst hospitals.

Nevada's hospitals rank 46th in the country. I'm surprised they're not 50th.

http://www.hospitalsafetygrade.org/your-hospitals-safety-grade/state-rankings

[bettyellen]

255. You missed the part with her talking about taking the kid to Cali to die?

And being hung up on the cost of transport from one hospital to another?

Because shit like that- and that she ignored the fact that a days delay could be deadly- is why they needed to take over. Unless you think parents should be allowed in the surgical suite to direct surgery, this woman was wrong. Because that’s basically her expectation here. To tell them how to do surgery. Of course she is pitiful and distraught- but she’s also veered into negligence. It’s good that they pushed her into getting care at UCLA despite the fact that she wanted to check out her child.

[pnwmom]

262. Normal people would be "hung up" on a $9500 cost to fly a child to LA

when it would be faster and simpler to put that child in a car and drive her the 4 hours to get there.

She hadn't had surgery yet. She wasn't hooked up to medical lines yet. She could have gone another 4 hours.

[bettyellen]

273. Keep ignoring that she said she was taking her home to die? Really now....

Maybe you think thats her prerogative. I guess you’d have to in order to want to defend this woman.

[pnwmom]

277. She was freaking out based on the shock of what the doctors were telling her. But she was

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT not to trust that Nevada hospital to handle a rare and life-threatening illness. She needed to be near friends and family in CA and near excellent medical care, which she is satisfied with now.

I have had a child who was facing two different diagnoses that were both life threatening. It was the most sad and frightening year in my life. Thank goodness we had a wonderful pediatrician. But it turns out the specialists were wrong -- as they sometimes are. She didn't have the diseases they thought she had and needed no treatment at all. (Fortunately, there WAS no treatment for what they were afraid they had, so they didn't mistakenly remove any organs or pump her with any toxic drugs.)

It took several years before we were out from under that black cloud, but that child is now an adult with children of her own. And I was left with the certain knowledge that even the best doctors are human and can make mistakes. And I KNOW what it is like to be a parent facing the possible loss of a child.

[bettyellen]

283. Shes got a new fundraiser to stop the hospital from treating the child despite the cancer diagnosis

Which it obviously was since the poor kid is going under chemo. So, she is still to this day telling two different stories to the public. She claims to be finally happy after consulting with 13 doctors- which is an awfully amazing gift to someone who didn’t even have their kid insured
before this!- but it’s hard to say if this is true since they’ve also a FB Page filled with rabid lies and request for “support” to be mailed as well as a Go FundMe.

In the same pages she is claiming to be for and against treatment. This is after 13 doctor consults. That’s more than stress, that is bullshit. It’s got zero to do with you.

[LisaL]

205. For the type of tumor suspected, biopsy isn't advised because it can spread the tumor.

[LisaL]

201. The plan was to remove the kidney and the tumor. Then they didn't.

What exactly do you think that means?

[pnwmom]

204. I think it could mean that they decided to just biopsy it. I don't think they saw

a blatantly cancerous kidney and decided just to leave it there.

[LisaL]

207. That's not what I think at all.

Their plan was to remove the tumor. Then they didn't. If biopsy came back cancerous, the child would have to through the major surgery again. It doesn't make sense to me.

[laserhaas]

216. A lot here doesn't make sense

I including hostility towards the mother

[Dorian Gray]

346. I truly hope that child is okay and survives this

being removed from her family seems extreme. I'm curious about the other side of this story, however. The original article is very one sided without quotes from doctors or hospital.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

89. This makes sense based on what I've been reading about childhood kidney cancer.

Complete resection of the kidney is less risky, even factoring in the risk -1%- complete renal failure later in life, than doing biopsies and partial resections.

Not sure what type of cancer this kid has but something called a Wilms tumor sounds likely.

The staging goes from 1 to 3 with the mere presence of a biopsy (or other tumor spillage)

With Stage 3 and operative spillage comes a lot of risk for much worse prognosis later.

It appears diagnosis is best done through imaging and later pathology of the kidney AFTER it is removed to asses future treatments if needed.

Like you, my partner found a tumor incedental to other treatment. My partner was preparing for hernia surgery when they found a small mass on his pancreas. The diagnosis was Pancreatic Nueroendocrine Tumor(PNET) -- a much more survivable cancer than adenocarcinoma AKA pancreatic cancer.

PNETs are relatively rare - 2500 cases versus 95,000 cases of the bad pancreatic cancer. They see a lot of these tumors in autopsies of people who died from other causes.

The gamble is do you leave a PNET alone and watch it? Or do you cut it out? PNETS do not respond well to chemo or radiation. So if it spreads you have big problems.

Steve Jobs, contrary to popular belief, died due to a PNET and not the more deadly pancreatic adenocarcinoma. That's why doctors were quoted as saying Jobs would be alive today if he listened to his surgeon. He likely killed himself with woo.

[Doremus]

106. Thanks for sharing that information. If only their physician had communicated as well. :( n/t

[DFW]

345. A friend of mine had a kidney removed during a gall bladder operation

During the operation, they noticed that one of his kidneys was cancerous, and they removed it in the same operation. They said he might not have noticed it until it was too late, and that he was very lucky that the operation he WAS there for happened to be in the same general neighborhood.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Considering the source, and the fact that the only other report on this story

comes from an equally tendentious web site called "ProoftheBibleistrue," I suspect there's another and very different side to this incident.

[bettyellen]

21. They DID get a second opinion and preserved their parental rights. They insisted on proof it

Was cancer before they did the biopsy. They wanted to talk about alternative medicine other than chemo before the biopsy. They have no home address or employer and wanted to leave with the child- to a third place that was probably Mexico.

They now claim the hospital isn’t feeding her- because food they brought on was not eaten.
And the Dad only was apparently allowed lots of access to the kid, but not the mom for acting out. The biopsy hasn’t even been done yet.

It seems like they thought they could no treat the kid because they didn’t think that her symptoms were bad enough. And they thought they’d be better at diagnosing the kid rather than the doctors.

[laserhaas]

44. Where do you see they got a second opinion.

Change.org states the oppressive med team refused to release the case file copies

[bettyellen]

59. They were in Vegas where they found the lump, then they went to LA...

Where they said the same thing. The family was trying to recommend exactly what sort of surgery they wanted, and also asked to be given time to consider wholistic or “alternative” methods - should it be discovered as cancer.
The tumor looked to be large enough that he organ needed to be removed, and of course they argued with that too. The mother was so disruptive, they had to bar her from seeing the kid. Not the dad. She lied to say they were starving the kid.

Reading that story, it seems mom thought she could actually dictate exactly what the treatment would be, not just where. And that she favored non medical woo. She had no home address or steady job and wanted to run off to get alternative counseling after already delaying treatment once, and fighting the doctors on every single recommendation. That’s a very stupid woman. They probably did save that kids life despite her.

[still_one]

78. A biopsy is the first step to determine if there is a malignancy, so I am not understanding the

statement that the parents "insisted on proof it was cancer before they did the biopsy"

Unless I am reading it wrong, that doesn't make logical sense

Unless the mass is blocking the child's output of urine, I find it hard to believe that any reputable surgeon would remove the kidney without a biopsy confirmation, unless the mass was causing other issues that needed immediate attention.

Not enough information seems to be present in the links

[LisaL]

88. I don't find it hard to believe. Most kidney tumors are cancerous.

They can spread to other organs. Also, a person has two kidneys. If a tumor is on only one kidney, then removing it would still leave a person with a healthy kidney and not needing dialysis. So given that information, removing tumor/kidney as fast as possible makes sense to me.

[still_one]

92. Appreciate the perspective. I didn't follow the links, but within the OPs I didn't see anything

that indicated the pathology report on the removed kidney. I would assume that the pathology report indicated a malignancy, otherwise it would not make sense for them to put a shunt in there.

It just seemed to me like there was a lot details missing from the article

[Hassin Bin Sober]

100. Agree. And in some cases a biopsy can cause more trouble.

Generally, biopsies are not known to spread cancer. But in the case of a Wilms Tumor (common type of kidney cancer in kids her age), the presence of a biopsy (or other surgical spillage) raises the staging from 1 to 3.

So you weigh the risk of diagnosis based on clinical examination, imaging alone, and perhaps removing a good kidney. This carries a 1% risk of complete renal failure later in life.

Or

Poking holes in what is most likely a cancerous tumor and turning what might be a curable stage 1 in to a much less favorable stage 3 diagnosis and possible spread of a tumor that was contained.

[xmas74]

90. There is a post up thread that lays it out.

A poster went through this and explained it better than any of us.

[still_one]

93. Thanks. I will look for it. I assume the pathology report on the removed kidney showed a

malignancy

[xmas74]

95. They said over 80 percent will be malignant.

It's an interesting post and I'd never thought about it until I read it. Laid out like it was made sense.

[still_one]

97. That may be true, but a pathology report on the removed kidney would have had to be done, and all I

am saying is that report should have been included in the OP, where the grade and type of tumor was identified by Pathology

[Codeine]

99. Im quite certain that would undermine

the narrative these whackjobs are trying to spin.

[still_one]

103. I am not sure why I didn't think of the most obvious explanation. Thanks

[Hassin Bin Sober]

107. they wouldn't be doing post operative chemo if it wasn't cancer.

This is one of those cases you wish the major surgery was a waste of effort and risk.

[LisaL]

326. Apparently it is Wilms tumor, if you believe what is posted on facebook.

[bettyellen]

165. The mother is very confused and trying to micromanage or avoid the surgery.

And she wanted to take the kid for a third opinion in Mexico - after refusing care at the second hospital in LA. (Which they were angry cost 9K to medivac her to)
So they were going to delay treatment again, while fighting with the doctors and sadly being super preoccupied w costs
And accusing them of extortion when they wanted to test the kid in Vegas. She seemed confused about the process docs go through with diaganosis and that stuff can change. I think they told her it was likely stage four, but they needed to get it and be ready to remove the kidney if needed and she seemed really angry there wasn’t a definitive proof of cancer before surgery. Somewhere in there is a mention of spots on the lung and the kids “last days”. And talk of alternative medicine. I got the impression the parents were worried about spending money for care that was not guaranteed to work. Sadly that’s how things are. It’s a sad jumbled mess, but the story’s headline is bullshit. She wanted to take the kid for a third opinion in Mexico, and that’s when they stepped in. They felt it was urgent to operate.

[LisaL]

213. Stage four means cancer spread to lungs. From what is being claimed, there are spots found on child'

lungs. So stage four would make sense if that's true.

[bettyellen]

217. It honestly seemed to be about the costs vs success of treatment. None of us get

The sort of guarantees she was looking for. I don’t think she was going to be okay w surgery in Mexico either.

[laserhaas]

36. I'm living proof that the lack of media attention is far

from being dispositive

[jberryhill]

52. Google the names of the parents

This appears to have more to do with promotion of a YouTube channel.

[hlthe2b]

3. very disturbing but... I think there is more to the story that we aren't getting...

Otherwise, why have they not gotten a lawyer to assist them? I'm horrified at what is presented, but also can not help but think we need to hear from those on the "other side"... Something is just not adding up.

[laserhaas]

37. The parents dynamics has nothing to do with the case

No authority should be arbitrary & capricious in removing a child from the parents

[hlthe2b]

70. It may only SEEM to be arbitrary & capricious... we are not getting the full story.

[dflprincess]

4. Something's fishy

both doctors and insurance companies encourage second opinions before proceeding with drastic and expensive procedures. Especially when it involves permanently altering a child's body.

[laserhaas]

38. I most certainly would want a 2nd opine before subjecting my child to invasive surgery

and chemical poisons

[bettyellen]

61. They had the child flown to Los Angeles for a second opinion- a two day delay -

And they disliked the part where they said the tumor was large enough they might have to remove her organ.
The mother wanted to take her out and explore other options, possibly in Mexico. The mother wanted to control the medical treatment down to last detail. To tell them how to do the surgery. She wanted proof of cancer before the biopsy that was desperately needed.

She was out of control. But she consented to the treatment and should have preserved her parental rights because of that. Funny it’s been two weeks since the biopsy and no follow up posts? Is that because they’re fundraising off this new nonsense that they are “starving” her baby? Or because the doctors were right?

Hopefully Mom STFU before she gave them more evidence she was negligent.

[Luciferous]

5. This story sounds off to me.

[laserhaas]

40. Why?

Those pics are what.....photoshopped?

[Skittles]

51. have we heard from the medical staff yet?

[bettyellen]

62. Biopsy was weeks ago and no update.... hmm. Mom is a nut job who thought

She could order surgical services off a menu and then do woo instead of chemo. Just no.

[jberryhill]

111. Why would we?

None of the medical professionals can say anything due to confidentiality rules.

[FSogol]

6. LOL, Medical Kidnap.com? Gullible much?

[laserhaas]

7. What would you call it, if it was your child?

The mother appears to have done a proper naming of the facts as she sees it.

[FSogol]

8. It's a fake news site. Check out their other fake stories shown on snopes.

My gawd, does everyone really want to accept "they are all against us" 24/7.

x ∞

[laserhaas]

9. Is this fake?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. It could be. Anybody can put anything they want on Youtube.

[laserhaas]

45. Could be

True - too

[FSogol]

11. Seek help. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Yup. Snopes describes it as a "notoriously unreliable" alternative medicine site.

So I'm not swallowing this story.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. If it was my kid I'd have contacted a lawyer,

gone to court to challenge CHP, maybe sued the hospital, and contacted the media. The real media, not some woo website. If any of those things had been done there should be some report of this somewhere other than Wooville, and there isn't.

[pnwmom]

13. Remember Justina Pelletier? Hospitals do sometimes take custody of children

when they shouldn't. Cases like this shouldn't be automatically dismissed.

[laserhaas]

16. Concur.. William Windsor is the one who asked me to post

Be is not one given to falsity

And the naming of UCLA would be serious libel, if false

[FSogol]

17. Be careful Laser, the unnamed hospital is coming for your kidneys!

[laserhaas]

24. Fact check on "unnamed hospital"

They say UCLA

[FSogol]

29. Yeah, they're known for bball championships & stealing kidneys.

[LisaL]

313. Nobody needs kidneys with tumors on them. You can't transplant those.

[bettyellen]

68. The article cited accuse them of experimenting on kids and human trafficking, LOL

[xmas74]

12. This site has put out other stories like this

That cannot be proven.

There's more to the story.

[pnwmom]

15. It would be nice to think that hospitals never make mistakes, but we know they do.

And sometimes they take custody when they shouldn't.

Justina Pelletier.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Justina Pelletier's case was reported on extensively

by reputable news sources. This one comes only from a dubious alternative-medicine site and one called "ProofTheBibleIsTrue." While it's true that sometimes hospitals screw up, the story in the OP does not make sense; there is almost certainly another side to it.

[pnwmom]

33. Many people here didn't believe Pelletier's parents because the reporting

began on right-wing sites, and most of the reporting continued to be there, although mainstream media eventually got involved.

[laserhaas]

41. I find the rush to cruel judgment

to be disconcerting

[mythology]

85. As opposed to your rush to judgment

That the hospital, CPS and the courts are all cruelly wrong?

[jberryhill]

146. Many people here didnt believe Terri Schiavos parents - and dont

In fact, upon critical review of the story, neither did I nor do I still.

That has nothing to do with the fact that she was an icon for the right, and still is.

[xmas74]

30. But this specific site is notorious for

These stories with little to no proof. A year down the road the truth comes out and it's never as it was portrayed.

Justiana was reported on by reputable sources. I found one link-from the medical kidnap site. I also found mention in a closed Facebook group that a relative had posted that not everything is what's portrayed by the mother. The family member has since taken it down mentioning a family rift but a group member snapped and shared it.

If it had been a reputable source I'd believe it but this site claims that the government takes Christian home school babies, does extensive medical experiments on them and then sells them all off or puts them in the sex trade. The site is nuts.

[laserhaas]

42. Facts are facts...no matter what the repeating persons

race, color, sex or creed

[Codeine]

58. Race, sex, color, and creed are not the issues;

batshit raving lunacy most assuredly is, however.

[xmas74]

75. And the site is notorious for never stating

All the facts. They take an incident, highly embellish it and never follow up.

If you want to believe a site that has lies, go for it. I'll wait to see if others report this story.

[Mariana]

143. Is it a fact

that the government takes Christian home school babies, does extensive medical experiments on them and then sells them all off or puts them in the sex trade?

[Codeine]

147. He wont respond.

He refuses to address issues of credibility of his sources.

[jberryhill]

152. Doesnt everyone know that?

[laserhaas]

46. What's not yet part of the story

Is any proof to the contrary

[xmas74]

76. No one accepts this site as truth.

Why are you so invested in a site that reports lies?

[uppityperson]

19. There are no other internet hits except linked to this story. I am very skeptical

[laserhaas]

20. I'm not! ...I trust Bill Windsor, who provided the story

Here is a video by the mother...hours ago.

[bettyellen]

22. WatF does that video tell us? Attention seeking mom doesnt seem focused on her kid at all.

[laserhaas]

48. Opinions vary

Greatly

[bettyellen]

67. You know the truth is she wanted a third opinion- in Mexico

After delaying the biopsy for days by moving the kid to Los Angeles she wanted to explore alternative medicine in Mexico and listen to recommendations from someone who never saw the kid or her health records.

That why it’s weeks later and no one updated is w biopsy results. They are full of shit

Malignant narcissism.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. So? I could make a video "proving" I'd been abducted by aliens

and then post it on Youtube, and that means everybody would have to believe it?

[laserhaas]

50. You sound creative

Condescending.....fer sure

Creative...possibly

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Who the hell is Bill Windsor, and why should I believe him

just because you do?

[laserhaas]

31. Hey...move on... You have other things better to do

Than pick on a grief stricken mother case

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. You said "Bill Windsor" can vouch for this story.

I want to know who he is and why I should believe him. I'm not "picking on a grief-stricken mother," who is not likely to be reading DU in any event. And if she's so grief-stricken why hasn't she taken this matter to court or gone to the real media?

[laserhaas]

34. I said Bill Windsor's word is good enough for me

While I concur you need not take anything at face value - I find your hostility - to be bad form.

There's no evidence the story is bogus.

Just ad hominem attacks inexplicable...

[Chemisse]

81. Generally the standard should be 'is there evidence to prove it is true?'

We need to resist believing something because it fits within our notions about the subject.

Skepticism is a good thing.

[laserhaas]

82. Skeptism is one thing

Ad hominem attacks is another

[Chemisse]

84. I agree. Attacking without evidence to justify it is just as bad. n/t

[laserhaas]

115. It is very disconcerting

[jberryhill]

54. Hes a whole bag of crazy

Google his name with “vexatious”

[laserhaas]

124. Please stay on point with the case

He..me..they aren't the issue

The child and parental rights are the issues

[SharonClark]

53. Sorry, I may have missed your response, but who is Bill Windsor?

[jberryhill]

55. He is a certified vexatious litigant

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20151019b35

In any event, pursuant to an Order from United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Windsor is permanently enjoined from filing any complaint in any federal court without first obtaining leave from the federal district court wherein the complaint is to be filed. Pursuant to that Order, Windsor filed a request for leave from this Court on July 1, 2015. Doc. 1. Finding that the underlying Complaint is frivolous, however, the request for leave is denied. See Jn re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2nd Cir. 1984) (upholding a court order restricting plaintiffs access to all federal courts. "We need not wait until a vexatious litigant inundates each federal district court with meritless actions to condition access to that court upon a demonstration of good faith.&quot ; Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1387 (11th Cir. 1993) (''The only restriction this Circuit has placed upon injunctions designed to protect against abusive and vexatious litigation is that a litigant cannot be completely foreclosed from any access to the court. This Court has upheld pre-filing screening restrictions on litigious plaintiffs.&quot (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original). See also In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 209 (10th Cir. 1981)) ("`The Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process. These restrictions may be directed to provide limitations or conditions on the filing offuture suits.'&quot .

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) That Plaintiffs request for leave to file the Complaint, Doc. 1, is denied.
(2) That Plaintiffs Complaint seeking temporary restraining order and injunctive relief is denied as moot.
(3) That Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification of Filing Method, Doc. 4, is denied as moot.

[laserhaas]

117. Like judges never make rulings contrary to the law

Puhhlleeaassee

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

118. If that occurs you appeal. You don't deluge the court with bullshit pleadings.

There's no bigger PITA than a pro se litigant. They don't know what they're doing; they bury the court in lengthy, rambling documents that make no sense; they don't understand the law or the rules of civil procedure; and they won't go the hell away when they justifiably lose. Most courts put up with these dingbats because there's no rule preventing someone from acting as their own attorney, and they will cut pro se litigants a fair amount of slack, but at some point they have to draw a line and refuse to accept yet another 100-page brief, filed late and full of spurious and irrelevant crap. Seems like Mr. Windsor deserved to be banned from the federal courts.

[laserhaas]

130. Obviously you have never run into a rigged case

Your reflections are obtuse and off point - here

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

151. I'm a retired attorney and I once worked in a court system,

so I've seen a lot of crazy shit. Every nutball pro se litigant who (inevitably) loses his case claims the system was rigged against him - whereas the truth, without fail, is that he lost because (a) he had a lousy case to begin with (if his case hadn't sucked he'd have been able to find a lawyer willing to take it), and (b) he didn't know what the hell he was doing. He didn't follow the rules of procedure; filed lengthy, poorly-written and largely irrelevant briefs late; persisted in re-filing briefs and pleadings even after he was told he couldn't, and generally wasted the time of an already-overworked judge and court staff. These guys obsess over some perceived wrong to the point of near-lunacy, and instead of getting a useful hobby or a job, take their obsession and worry it like a dog with a bone until some exasperated judge finally tells them to get the hell out of his courtroom. In the old days they'd write loony letters to the editor; now they get on the internet, create a blog and use it to complain about the rigged system and the corrupt judges who evilly deprived them of justice.

[laserhaas]

154. Well...I'm not retired and there still is plenty wrongs amok

Just because you disagree with Windsor's strategy, doesn't make him a nutcase.

Many have said the same and worse about me; and the vast majority are disingenous

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

157. I'm not the one disagreeing with Windsor's "strategy,"

which seems to consist of deluging courts with frivolous pleadings; it's a federal judge who got to see his strategy, if you want to call it that, up close and personal. Since a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, what would you call repeatedly filing meritless lawsuits and getting kicked out of court every single time?

[laserhaas]

158. The thing is - counselor - your banter and others here

attack me for posting, and Windsor for bringing this case to my attention, with disingenuous banter about mentality. Part of which is bogus banter about the merits of case or strategies.

All of which has nothing to do about the merits of this child's case; and her mom's right to a 2nd opinion.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

159. You brought up Bill Windsor. We get to cross-examine you about him.

Trial procedure 101.

[laserhaas]

163. Trialprocedure 101 ...I object!

Arguments about who first cried foul is not relevant.

This case is about parental rights and over reach of CPS

[laserhaas]

161. By the way, arguments are made to do this, or that, or appeal.

Keeping in line with your premise of doing same thing, over and over, is the definition of insanity - what do you have to say about a case docket like thus (which, by the way, was my suing Trump to stop Jay Clayton nomination. The clerk delayed putting the case into the record for 9 weeks {3 weeks after Clayton was confirmed} Everything is far from as simple as your arguments presume).

If one Circuit incongruously rules FRAP don't apply to your case and another clear across the country rules that confessions to lying under oath to a chief judge are insubstantial, which is followed up with Clerks putting case files in a closet for months --- then how us doing your way - not the very definition of insanity?

Just sayin.....

Link to tweet

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

166. OK, that was both incoherent and hilarious.

I think you should find another hobby.

[laserhaas]

174. Try this (though we are in the court of public opinion)

And you - obviously - have bias.

Pro we parties are to be granted latitude; and (speaking trial dynamics 100) - a Complaint is taken at face value, until evidence of the contrary is fully vetted.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D1474P.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjs7e-dn5zZAhVT1WMKHdcuDMwQFjAHegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3cBWkbjMqjr-b1MT5KoKqJ

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

177. Did you actually read that case? The whole thing?

In the footnote you referenced, the court said: "While a pro se litigant is given some latitude with respect to his pleadings, a pro se plaintiff is not excused from complying with rules of procedural and substantive law." And then the court ruled against the pro se plaintiff because he had failed to meet a 45-day filing deadline. You can't cherry-pick sentences and phrases from a case. You have to read and consider the whole thing. Which is another reason pro se litigants are a PITA.

[laserhaas]

182. Again..you - conveniently (much bias) - jump the point

The points are - latitude is to be given - and my case specifics (that you summarily looked down upon {as they rock your paradigm}), are dispositive on the factor that there are - some - case riggings.

By the way, I'm well familiar FRCP 8 and the (near contrarian) Twombly / Iqbal requisites

[jberryhill]

178. 100 page brief?

Give Laser his due. Laser’s most recent civil complaint alone was more than 178 pages.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

179. LOL, what ever happened to F. R. Civ. P. 8?

That whole "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" thing?

[laserhaas]

238. Shows how disingenuous you are

My most recent filing was 35 pages

http://petters-fraud.com/timestamp_of_may9_2017_on_haas_v_trump_filed_march22_2017.pdf

[jberryhill]

249. I was referring to the last one you were yammering about on DU

...and how you were going to have Mitt Romney locked up as a consequence of your stellar legal scholarship in that case.

[laserhaas]

252. If you would ever stop being so hateful and disigenuous

You would see the evidence is"clear & convincing" that Mitt, Bain Cap., and SAchs should be fined and disgorged.

[laserhaas]

240. It is amazing that your hate towards me outweighs the

issue of Trump nominating a crooked federal prosecutor for the federal bench (a guy so bad that Senator Joe Biden blocked Colm Connolly first judicial nomination) and a Goldman Sachs suck up (Jay Clayton).

You are drawing a line in the sand and not paying attention to what side of the fence you are on.

[jberryhill]

135. His results have been fairly consistent across judges

[laserhaas]

136. You may a great case about consistency

Which doesn't bode well, for you, ultimately

[laserhaas]

116. Bill Windsor bravely went to Grand Jury about bad judge

And he was ostracized for doing so.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

119. That's not how you deal with a "bad judge." And a judge isn't "bad"

just because he ruled against you. Trying to get a judge criminally prosecuted because you don't like his rulings sounds like something Trump would do. If Windsor was "ostracized" for that stunt, as you claim, he deserved it.

[laserhaas]

121. That's your opinion. Windsor is not the issue. The facts are

And, all this hostility against the mom, Windsor or my postings has nothing to do with the facts of the child's case.

[Codeine]

125. The facts are entirely unknown

because

A) patient confidentiality, and

B) the websites pushing this story excel at distortion, obfuscation, and outright deception.

You’re asking us to believe a story that is being pushed EXCLUSIVELY by the paranoid fringe without any corroboration by a legitimate news source. You have to expect pushback.

And I’m sorry, but if you make a central tenet of your argument “Bill Windsor said it so I believe it” then you’ve made him - and his credibility - an issue. He’s a fucking whackjob who was arrested for stalking people who disagreed with him. He threatens people with lawsuits as easily as a normal person draws breath.

[laserhaas]

128. What a crock

Facts are entirely known...

Shheesshh

[Codeine]

134. Really? How about the biopsy results.

Interesting how that hasn’t been mentioned on these loony-tunes little shitshow websites.

[laserhaas]

137. One (purported) fact

Is not dispositive to your claim that all the facts are in

[Codeine]

140. It most certainly brings the likelihood

that we have anywhere near all the facts into considerable doubt. And since only paranoiac conspiracy sites are pushing this bunk the likelihood becomes even more questionable.

You’re known by the company you keep, Mr. Haas. Nailing your credibility flag to the mast of MedicalKidnap.com and Bill Windsor is unwise.

[laserhaas]

148. The company I keep are seekers of truth

Not people who tuck tail and run from vindictiveness

[Codeine]

149. Theyre certifiable nutbags

who think hospitals sell little Christian babies into the sex trade.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

141. The complete facts are not known because HIPAA rules prevent the doctors

and hospitals from commenting. You, and we, have only one side. And you made Windsor an issue by stating you believed these "facts" because Windsor vouched for them. I think we get to push back by pointing out evidence that Windsor is not a particularly credible character.

[laserhaas]

153. I made Windsor an issue of source

That it was not the website of Medical Kidnap that I based looking into the story.

Unlike the mob mentality here...I believe in giving the mother a benefit of the doubt

[Codeine]

57. Holy shit. Bill Windsor is as nutty as a shithouse rat.

He’s a sovereign citizen nutbag and a notorious purveyor of paranoia. That you take his word as evidence of anything does not lend credence to your position.

Seriously, guys — Windsor is whackadoodle to the tenth power.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

102. Yes, he is. A quick Google search revealed that his thing is suing people.

All the time. For everything and anything. https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/lawless-america/internet/lawless-america-william-m-windsor-bill-windsor-lawless-america-association-lawless-a-1054005

He's probably the last person in the world, with the possible exception of Donald Trump, whose word should be believed about anything.

[Codeine]

104. It says something about the OP that

he places such faith in a total nutfuck.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

105. Yes, it does.

This pile of steaming poo really belongs in CT, if anywhere at all.

[jberryhill]

317. .

[hunter]

39. It depends on what kind of second opinion they were seeking, doesn't it?

I don't think Brian Shilhavy's Bible science and coconut oil diet, or similar nonsense, would be a rational second opinion, especially for anything as dangerous as childhood cancer.

"We publish articles in this category from the senior editor of Health Impact News, Brian Shilhavy, that look at the ancient cultures in the Bible and how they viewed health. We also feature writers and articles from the Discovery Institute and other places that view science from an Intelligent Design perspective."

I have no respect for the source, and hell no, I'm not going to link to any of his crap, or anything that links to his crap, or anything that links to links of his crap...

[laserhaas]

43. My concern is for the child

It matter's not, who the storyteller is.

[hunter]

47. So is mine.

This needs a legitimate source. Brian Shilhavy is a Bible thumping snake oil, um, coconut oil salesman.

By virtue of the source, I'm betting the parents sought a second opinion from some kind "alternative medicine" grifter or well meaning idiot and their kid would have suffered for it.

But maybe they just wanted their kid to live and die naturally. Children dying was pretty common in Biblical times.

Who knows?

There's not enough reliable information here.

Personally, I think there's alternative medicine that works and I'm frequently skeptical of big agriculture and the pharmaceutical industry, but all of this can be explored by science.

I'm particularly interested in cannabis, and I'm hoping the obstacles to research will soon be lifted. Cannabis clearly has some useful medical properties, but like any other drug, it's not going to be an effective treatment for most ailments, only some.

[laserhaas]

49. The mother 8s a legitimate source

Until clear and convincing evidence e - to the contrary.

[hunter]

60. Childhood kidney tumors are terrifying.

https://www.cancer.gov/types/kidney/patient/wilms-treatment-pdq

This is what we are talking about.

There's no easy answers here.

[laserhaas]

129. The issue is, 2nd opinion / options

Was this case life immediate life threatening.

The mother did seek diagnosis upon discovery of an issue; but the dynamics as played out, seem to suggest they attacked the mother based on "homelessness" rush to judgment

[LisaL]

199. When they took her from Nevada hospital to California hospital, they got the second opinion.

How many opinions with the disease like cancer should someone be getting? When time is of the essence.

[bettyellen]

290. They think the second opinion was the same because the doctors were friends

And she says she is happy now that she had talked to 23 different doctors in LA. But then again, another FB Page has a new post slamming the hospital and raising funds to fight them so they can stop the chemo they claim was forced on them “without proof”. Oh man, that mom is one confused lady.

[bettyellen]

69. She says she has no diagnosis and then claims the kid had stage 4 cancer seconds later? She is

clearly confused and delaying treatment to try to get the kid to a different hospital- and not pay transport for that.
When they get to the second hospital she tries to convince them she’ll take the kid to Mexico for treatment?

All the while taking video of herself singing outside the hospital and haggling over the price of transport. WTF is wrong with her? Narcissistic asshole.

[KT2000]

56. first doctor was going to remove

my brother's colon and a kidney because they saw a mass on the CT san. Second doctor took the time to remove the mass that turned out to be a nonmalignant tumor that has lost its blood supply a long time ago. It did take a long time to remove it but he kept his colon and kidney.

Surgeons run hospitals because they bring in the money. ALWAYS get a second opinion. They need to sue.

[bettyellen]

63. They flew the kid to LA for a second opinion. Read the story.

[WillowTree]

64. There just has to be more to the story.

[grantcart]

65. The hospital is prohibited from discussing because of HIPAA regulations.

Only one side of the story.

[Codeine]

66. What a bunch of cockamamie bullshit.

Nonsense being pushed by alt-med woo-peddlers and far-right religious fuckwits, vexatious paranoia-jockeys, and the hair-on-fire fringe. Not a legitimate source to be found among them.

This right here? This is why we need an Unrec button.

[laserhaas]

71. According to the Steemit article, CPS threatened the parents

About going public with the case.

https://steemit.com/familyprotection/@ladyrebecca/medical-kidnap-two-year-old-taken-by-cps-in-california-developing-story

(NOTE..link works; but you have to copy/paste whole syntax)

Per Steemit article:

...."Although the CPS worker has allegedly told the mother not to share the story on social media, Leah Beabout is fighting for her child's rights by any means available, and updates have been made on her Facebook account.""...

[laserhaas]

72. The child looks malnourished

https://steemit-production-imageproxy-thumbnail.s3.amazonaws.com/DQmcPteJW3yJUJCidpUCmrspLpxZUwRVf1qf6HYFPAKRFsv_1680x8400

[LisaL]

86. She has a serious health issue.

Most tumors on kidneys are cancerous. And sounds like hers spread to lungs (at least if claims about spots on lungs are true).

[Codeine]

98. Quit shilling Steemit. Its a crypto-currency pyramid scheme

masquerading as a social media site. It is -by its very nature - inherently untrustworthy.

[laserhaas]

131. Shilling implies I'm getting a benefit

Which us as bogus as your framework

[jberryhill]

184. You already said you were told to post this

[laserhaas]

189. Nobody "tells" me to do anything. Windsor and I

do not see eye to eye on a great many things. Including demeanor.

Be that as it may, we are cognizant of one another.

He put out a general Tweet notifying the public at large of the request; and I looked into the case.

Having endured abuse of CPS mishandling myself and others, in my youth, and seeing a plethora of cases of abuse of power by CPS and Private system in Nevada - my interest was peaked.

The posting of the item was to address the case specifics of parental rights (especially to 2nd opinions); and delve further into this case specifics.

So far, for the most part, there is bigotry against the website personal opinions, Windsor's opinions and vast banter against myself in general.

But there's nothing along the lines of facts that would meet Judical Notice standards- by the naysayers

[jberryhill]

250. Yes, someone activated the Batshit Beacon

And you heeded the call

[Mariana]

145. The child looks like she's receving chemotherapy for her cancer. nt.

[laserhaas]

73. Per the mother's FB account, as of 17 hours ago

The family is - still - apart

[NCTraveler]

74. I would be careful with this story.

More will be known in the next couple of weeks. This has lawyer written all over it, is almost completely from one side, and is already being used online as a reason to not have government in healthcare.

We don’t have the whole story.

And if you feel like taking a moment, look up the doctor that they said they found, out of the country, willing to offer them alternative options.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

112. The "lawyer" is probably the aforementioned William Windsor,

who is not actually a lawyer but a professional instigator of frivolous lawsuits who was finally barred from the federal court system after having been deemed a vexatious litigant. No competent lawyer would touch this mess, and if there had been an actual lawsuit there'd be a record of it. If you google the mother's name you'll see that she's a singer-songwriter, and the various Youtube videos seem to be mainly her self-promotion vehicles.

[Codeine]

114. Speaking of non-lawyers who are

professional instigators of frivolous lawsuits and are deemed vexatious litigants. . .

[jberryhill]

142. Its almost as if they have their own bar association

[Codeine]

144. As long as there is a gold fringe on the flag

count me in!!

[jberryhill]

150. Ah, you want to head up the Admiralty Law committee

Will you be looking for a personal membership or a corporate membership agent of the legal entity that is named as you?

[Codeine]

155. Whatever gets me my $630,000 faster. nt

[jberryhill]

138. Correct

But our dear Laser Taitz knows that actual lawyers are all in on the huge conspiracy of the legal system against sovereign citizens.

[LisaL]

83. What alternative treatments did she want to try on the child?

Sounds like the child has a serious problem. As far as I can tell so far neither they kidney nor the tumor has been removed.

[SidDithers]

91. Get this garbage off DU...

Sid

[Codeine]

94. This. A thousand times this.

Nutbaggery and hokum spiked with a soupçon of paranoia religious fervor, all thickly frosted with a generous layer of an attention-seeking parent with a career to advance and garnished with the maraschino cherry of Vexatious Litigation.

[SidDithers]

109. I'm gonna go see if Dennis Gorski, or Steve Novella, has written about this case...

Sid

[xmas74]

96. I made a comment about the site

OP still isn't listening.

[Codeine]

101. It is less about not listening

and more about sticking fingers in ears and shouting “la la la I can’t hear you!!”

[xmas74]

108. Exactly.

This site is known for expanding the truth, leaving only a grain. They ran a story a few years back about a woman giving birth to her rape baby and the state took it. Turns out she was only fourteen, was in foster care, the father was her father and she had several psychological issues that made her unfit at the time. The site only mentioned that she was a proud God warrior who chose to keep instead of abort.

[Devil Child]

110. I stand with CPS

Even more so after reading through this conspiratorial anti family services and medical bull shit posted in the OP.

Medical social worker here who enjoys "stealing babies" from abusive and neglectful parents. Children first.

[Codeine]

113. This Bill Windsor character has a hard-on

for CPS and inserts himself into all sorts of cases involving children removed from parental custody.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

120. He sounds like a kind of Orly Taitz. Remember her?

Nuttier than squirrel shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz

[Codeine]

122. Oh man, theres a name to forget.

I guess there’s really no end to whackjobbery, is there?

[VivienneLove]

350. Yep

...in this case, so do I

[tritsofme]

123. How nice you've found new conspiracy theories that don't involve Mitt Romney stealing your toys!

[Codeine]

126. Snerk!!!

[laserhaas]

132. They are not theories

Facts are case specific and you don't have anything but disingenuous banter

[Hekate]

230. There are so many red flags in the mommy's account of things it's hard to keep them straight...

"Facts" seem to be slippery things in the telling here. I'm sorry she has a sick kid, but if she keeps this up she's going to have a dead kid. Regardless of how it turns out, I can tell she's going to spend the rest of her life blaming medical science and those who practice it for the outcome.

[pnwmom]

242. I'm more sympathetic to her than you are and maybe it's because I used to have to spend

a lot of time in Nevada, and some of our relatives used the medical system. We had a 60 year relative with pneumonia in a hospital there. He was admitted one night but not given antibiotics or put on oxygen because the doctor wasn't checking in till the morning. In the middle of the night the nurse wrote in his chart that he was cyanotic -- turning blue -- and she asked him if he needed anything. He said, "I don't know." Those were his last words. He died before the doctor could see him the next morning. Yes, there was a lawsuit and yes the family won. It didn't make up for losing a father and grandfather.

If I had had a child with a life-threatening condition there, I would have also wanted to move them out to Seattle ASAP.

By the way, this is what the mother of this toddler said on FB a week ago:

But don't worry she is receiving the standard of care of any other academic center in the country. Let's just trust these fellows and nurses that they are helping Grace the best they actually know how, and respect the process, People!

[LisaL]

246. What are the medical standards in Mexico?

Because that'a apparently where mother wanted to take the child.

[pnwmom]

247. It would depend on the hospital. Nevada's rank 46th among the states here,

so there are probably quite a number of better hospitals in Mexico. I certainly wouldn't assume every hospital in the US is better than any hospital in Mexico.

http://www.hospitalsafetygrade.org/your-hospitals-safety-grade/state-rankings

[LisaL]

251. Nevada isn't where she lost custody.

Nevada allowed her to take child to California. She lost custody after she took child to California hospital.

[pnwmom]

258. The initial doctor in LA was a friend of the doctor in NV, and probably influenced by his opinion.

In any case, she didn't actually lose custody. She was threatened with a loss of custody if she didn't sign. So she signed, under duress.

told her IF she would sign a 10-day consent to treatment, that she MAY be able to keep her parental rights. She signed under duress, and is only being allowed supervised visits.

[LisaL]

278. Are you suggesting they should have let her to take her child to Mexico?

[pnwmom]

280. If that was a credentialed pediatric oncologist at a good hospital -- YES.

And UCLA was perfectly capable of finding out.

(Americans frequently go to Mexico for health care, by the way.)

http://borderzine.com/2015/10/many-u-s-citizens-choosing-mexico-for-affordable-health-care-again/

A few months before Nadiezdha Dominguez was diagnosed with esophagitis, a medical condition that causes irritation or inflammation of the esophagus, she experienced first hand the stark difference in emergency room care provided in El Paso as opposed to Ciudad Juarez.

She concluded that the treatment she received in a Ciudad Juarez emergency room in August was “worlds of difference” better than her experience at an El Paso medical facility in March.

The 20-year-old UTEP student who lives with her mother in an area between Fabens and Clint is still paying the $1,350 bill for the hospital services and the doctor’s consultation she received at the El Paso hospital.

Although she was diagnosed correctly, she could not afford to pay for her follow-up treatment in El Paso because she is uninsured and prefers to pay the “individual mandate penalty” rather than sign up for health insurance under the U.S. government’s Affordable Care Act.

Instead, she crossed the Santa Fe (Paso del Norte) bridge with her mother five months ago and visited a Juarez hospital to get treated. She returned to the Juarez hospital emergency room three weeks ago for a symptom related to her esophagitis, where she was quickly seen, treated and charged $20 for the visit.

[bettyellen]

295. Those horrible child welfare people got her set up with insurance for the kid, so she didnt have to

Keep worrying about weighing the cost anymore. And yeah, I’m going to judge her for not having insurance for the kid when it was as simple as signing up. Not a sign of someone who is coping well w having a baby.

[pnwmom]

296. Yes, the parents might have thought of Mexico as a way to pay for care they couldn't afford.

And so the Social worker helped them get insurance. Good for her.

Yeah, I know you're "going to judge" the parents for not being as smart and together as you are, for not "coping well," and not already having insurance. Well, welcome to the world. Millions of people who aren't even together enough to get a high school degree still have babies. Should we take away their babies? Should we take babies away from everyone who isn't middle class , too? Or maybe we should help them cope without judging so much.

[bettyellen]

299. She was running from help at every turn, sadly she thought she should be micromanaging cancer treat

-ment when she didn’t even know eneough to have her kid ensured for free. It’s sad she had to have help for that child forced on her, instead of taking the kid home to die. I know some people think it’s up to her to let that kid die, but she obviously wasn’t knowledgeable, resourceful or competent enough to cope. I think her ego got the best of her, and am glad the kid got medical attention, despite the dangerous delays.

[pnwmom]

302. Asking to have blood tests done before removing a major organ isn't micro-managing.

They had scheduled her child for a kidney removal that turned out not to be indicated. The parents' questions weren't stupid -- and everybody should be thoughtful consumers of healthcare. Doctors aren't gods, even though a few of them think they are.

[bettyellen]

303. When complained about the scar size, the fact hat hey changed the plan during surgery, and now she

Is claiming they did no blood tests at all before surgery? Do you understand how wrong she is on all counts here?
She doesn’t know what the hell
She is talking about - and it took 14 doctors saying the same damn thing for her to meekly admit she is getting good care.

Like it or not, the second opinion came in the same as the first- and the 3rd through 14th opinions all supported that. The kidney has cancer and it was too far gone to remove it- probably spread to the other kidney since they kept it.

You do know if the other kidney was clean they would have removed it- right? Well, she still doesn’t get it and is trashing the doctors for every little thing. Face it- she is a control freak who wanted nothing done to her child at all.

[pnwmom]

304. Have you ever had any surgery? Of course the incision size is important.

That's why people have laparoscopic incisions whenever possible. Healing is more difficult and more painful, the bigger the incision is. I also happened to have kidney surgery, through a couple of half-inch incisions. No sane person would prefer open abdominal surgery if it could be done laparoscopically.

You are forgetting that the first doctor, the one in NV, probably didn't have the background or experience to do that kind of surgery even if it was indicated. No wonder the parents lost confidence. They were very WISE to get out of that Nevada hospital when they did. Clearly, the doctor did a poor job of explaining the situation to them -- but even if he had, HE wasn't the right person or in the right hospital to do the surgery.

Would you want to have a major surgery for a potentially rare and life threatening disease in a state with a 46th out of 50 safety record?

[LisaL]

307. Do you have any proof that the doctor in Nevada couldn't do the procedure?

Nobody suggested that at all. I also fail to see how you can claim that the doctor did the poor job of explaining things to the parents. She seemed to know child had stage 4 cancer based on that video of the phone call. Also, apparently that doctor made the correct diagnosis, because based on what is posted on facebook, pathology came back consistent with Wilms tumor.
As for laparoscopy, presumably they knew they couldn't even attempt it because of the size of the tumor. In the end, it would appear they couldn't remove it even with conventional surgery.

[pnwmom]

308. If it was Wilms, they wouldn't have needed to open her up, because the aim then would have been

to retain both kidneys. So a laparoscopic surgery to do the biopsy might have made sense. At least a doctor should have explained to them why it wouldn't.

Nevada is a small, rural state. With hospitals in the bottom of the US rankings, and a small patient base, it doesn't attract the best doctors. And it has special trouble attracting specialists -- the kind of doctor you'd need for a tricky surgery for a life threatening and rare disease.

When you have surgery, you're better off with a doctor who performs that kind of surgery frequently -- not once in a long while, which would be the case in a hospital servicing a state the size of Nevada.

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jul/20/nevadas-doctor-shortage-affects-clark-county/

In fact, new data reveal just how short we are on general practitioners and specialists, including emergency room physicians, pediatricians and OB-GYNs.

Nevada politicians, educators and health care workers point to Nevada’s doctor shortage as one of the state’s most pressing concerns. It creates long waitlists for patients, overwhelms emergency rooms and hurts the economy as people seek care elsewhere.

[LisaL]

309. What?

Wilms tumor is cancer. Why wouldn't they need to do the surgery if it was cancer? It also appears her cancer was in a stage where laparoscopy was no longer an option. Laparoscopy is done for stage 1 or 2. Hers is supposedly stage 4.

[pnwmom]

311. Didn't you notice that they decided not to remove the kidney after all?

But only after they opened her up?

[LisaL]

312. Again, the reason they didn't remove it are very likely not good ones for the child.

If it's too large already to remove, they would do chemo first trying to shrink it.
Or it could have already spread to both kidneys. One kidney can be removed without problems, but not both.

[pnwmom]

314. That's true. And that's another reason they were better off that the surgery was moved

out of Las Vegas and to Los Angeles, where they were FAR more likely to have a specialist who had dealt with Wilm's with some frequency, and not someone who was excited to get a surgery he didn't get to do very often -- AND a hospital that offered excellent care, not one near the bottom of national rankings.

All of this started because the parents were confronted with the sudden, shocking advice to remove the girl's kidney through open abdominal surgery -- by a doctor who wouldn't have been an expert in this (because national experts don't end up in so-so hospitals in Nevada, where they won't see many challenging cases.) The parents were RIGHT to be skeptical and to immediately want a second opinion, even when he told them he thought it was stage 4 (which is a staging that is done post-surgery, not pre-surgery.)

And after that rocky start with the medical community, and the surprise when they got to LA and found out that the surgery had been scheduled without any further testing (whether or not that was justified, they hadn't been prepared for it), I understand why this traumatized mother needed some time to adjust to what was happening.

ON UPDATE: I have dealt with the maelstrom of feelings a parent undergoes when confronted with the possibility that a child has a life threatening illness. Nothing could be more devastating. So maybe that's why I have more sympathy for the parents here than some people do. Also, in my child's case, thank goodness time proved the doctors were wrong, and no surgeries or toxic treatments were ever necessary. But I know how these parents must have felt when they got the diagnosis. And I don't blame them for feeling panicked or for wanting the best care possible. And that wouldn't be anywhere in Nevada, for a rare disease requiring specialist care.

[bettyellen]

310. Youve probably already read that generally biopsies are dangerous on the type of cancers she had

They did that only because it was already spread.

And the communication problems that led her to doctor shop, are on her. She spent a lot more time obsessing on the cost, unfortunately, than even trying to understand. She had crazy ideas - that hey could somehow prove to her what it was and what would happen before surgery- and that is not how it works for tumors. They obviously communicated they thought surgery was urgent- but she misread it and thought it was only for the worst of reasons. She was wrong. Also, disparaging the doctors “as friends” who just diagnose he same for the hell of it? She’s a moron, believing the worst conspiracy theories and unable to grasp reality. Really she is.

[pnwmom]

315. She was SMART to doctor shop. It would have been STUPID to have that surgery done in Nevada.

She needed the care of a specialist who had experience in that kind of rare tumor. And specialists in rare diseases don't end up in a small state like Nevada.

By the way, this doctor wasn't a renal specialist. He was a pediatric hematologist-oncologist -- but there is no children's cancer center in Las Vegas.

Because Wilms tumors are rare, few doctors outside of those in children’s cancer centers have much experience in treating them. Children with Wilms tumors are treated with a team approach that includes the child’s pediatrician as well as specialists at a child’s cancer center.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/wilms-tumor/treating.html


Dr. Alan Ikeda:

Specialties & Qualifications

Specialty: Pediatric Hematology-Oncology

Pediatric hematologists/oncologists, a subspecialty of hematologists, deal with diseases of the blood, spleen and lymph glands in children. They treat conditions such as anemia, clotting disorders, sickle cell disease, hemophilia, leukemia and lymphoma.

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/alan-ikeda-664711

[bettyellen]

316. It would have been stupid for them to let her leave LA when she was shopping for a no surgery

Recommendation and wanting to go to a third appointment in Mexico to get it. At least you admit she was shopping- but the thing is she was never ever going to find a reputable surgeon that would allow her to micro manage testing and surgery the way she wanted to. That’s not how good medicine is practiced.

You keep forgetting her trouble happened when she wanted to leave LA, not NV. You’re still married to the BS headline about not getting a second opinion- even though it’s far from the truth.

[pnwmom]

318. You appear to be someone who worships at the feet of doctors. I don't. I recognize

that they are as human as everyone else, and that second opinions, especially for treatment of a life-threatening illness -- are always advisable. THATs how good medicine is practiced. And the best doctors encourage second and even third opinions -- even if they come from a pediatric surgeon in another country, where the family has relatives, and the care is thought be more affordable.

[bettyellen]

321. Nope, Im someone who has had family behave like this woman and try to outsmart doctors when she

had no fucking clue what she was doing. Someone who would exaggerate every detail and lie about what she was told to get her way. Like this mom did.
She got her second opinion- and a fourteenth that concurred with the first. How hard is it to see this woman had no clue- and no reason to disparage these doctors?

[tammywammy]

322. There are two childrens hospitals in Las Vegas

Children’s Hospital at UMC and Sunrise Children’s Hospital. Dr. Alan Ikeda is affiliated with Sunrise. Both hospitals have a pediatric oncology unit.

[pnwmom]

324. Neither of them are national cancer centers. Nevada hospitals rank 46/50 in the country

for safety. And they have a problem with a doctor/specialist shortage, because few top specialists want to move to a small state with so-so hospitals.

Wilms Tumor is the kind of rare, life threatening disease that should be treated by experts; and the experts in Wilms don't practice in Las Vegas. But these parents weren't Nevadans. They were just visiting from southern California -- which does have a national cancer center at UCLA. They wanted to put their daughter in their car and drive her the four hours back home to see doctors there, instead of agreeing to immediate surgery in Nevada. That's how this whole mess began.

I used to have to visit Nevada several times a year. i wouldn't have allowed my child to have any serious surgery there, either, if I could have avoided it. Everyone I know in Nevada goes out of state for serious medical issues -- either California or places like the Mayo Clinic. They don't have the medical infrastructure that hospitals in larger states have.

[LisaL]

325. Y0u can be dissing Nevada's hospitals all day long.

Nevada isn't where she got in trouble. She was allowed to take child to California's hospital.

[pnwmom]

329. The person I was responding to was talking about Nevada hospitals. But her trouble DID

start there. They wouldn't let the parents drive home to LA. Even though the daughter had walked into the facility (her symptom being a lump in her abdomen), they insisted the family spend $9500 for a medical flight that the family would have to pay for -- instead of driving 4 hours home.

[Hekate]

289. I understand leaving Nevada for UCLA, but I still see red flags in this story as first presented...

...including the unwillingness of the parents (and some here) to understand and give credence to established medical practice regarding kidney masses in little children. I am so very glad you posted the mother's update that she is following doctors' advice and "respect(ing) the process."

Some DUers have medical experience and others have looked it up, and some have also tried to track the reliability of the original website or FB page or whatever that passed this story along. I find that commendable, actually. I myself have occasionally gotten caught up in someone's sad story online, often an "as told to" with a particular narrative line. I have grown wary.

When bad things happen to a child it is very scary for the parents. But panic makes things worse.

(Sigh) I wrote several paras of personal experience, which I just deleted. Suffice it to say, whether my grown son and daughter know it or not, their bad medical emergencies as kids were bad for me as well. After my son's terrible bicycle accident, I used some of my freeway time to scream and plead with whatever gods may be. But not in front of my son or the medical personnel. Advocate for them -- yes. Fight with the doctors and delay treatment? No.

[pnwmom]

292. The thing that bothered me the most is that so many were judging the mother

and even calling her a liar, even though all of us know very little about what was really going on -- except that the family is going through hell.

And we know that it is possible for doctors to make mistakes, and for social workers to make mistakes, and for children to get inappropriate care. And yes, there is such a thing as a bad parent. But with all those unknowns in this case, it doesn't seem right to automatically condemn the parents -- parents who are facing the possible loss of their only child. (And who, on top of everything else, might have a genetic predisposition to that problem, if Wilms is what she has.)

You weren't one of those people, Hekate -- you have empathy. But there are some others . . .

[jberryhill]

139. Heh

[SidDithers]

160. +1...

Sid

[Lisa0825]

183. I learned long ago not to wrestle with a pig.

You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

[pnwmom]

239. Personal attacks are supposed to be avoided here. I'm going to assume you didn't know that.nt

[tritsofme]

245. This person usually posts about Romney stealing his toys, it's nice to see he has new interests.

I know that by just posting this, I am at risk of being replied at with a 20 page copy/paste.

[laserhaas]

248. My interest in bringing down Romney/ Bain Cap etc.,

has never waned.

The bigger question is - why aren't you seeking same!

[Kaleva]

127. This story is also covered on the "Proof The Bible Is True" site so you know it's legit!

http://proofthebibleistrue.com/california-parents-lose-custody-of-2-year-old-daughter-when-asking-for-a-second-opinion-before-removing-childs-kidney/

[laserhaas]

133. The issues here, are parental rights to be informed and choices

Which should not be yanked away, whimisically

[LAGC]

187. Quit pedaling nutbag conspiracy fake news stories here on DU.

We used to have a Creative Speculation section for this crap.

Good grief.

[laserhaas]

190. Nobody is doing "nutbag" stuff...other than ad hominem attackers

Like yourself, who are staying - off point!

[LAGC]

191. Your source you cited is a known fake news site,

and the person you said could "vouch" for it is a known sovereign citizen whack-a-doodle and fake lawyer who likes to file frivolous lawsuits.

Why are you doubling down on this when everyone is pointing this out to you?

Look at the results of your own poll you started in this thread...

[laserhaas]

212. Her FB and YouTube are not fake

[LAGC]

222. How do you know?

And since when is social media ever a credible source for anything?

Anyone can create a Facebook or YouTube page and make bogus claims.

Alex Jones has a real Facebook and YouTube page. Does that make anything he says credible? Just because it's published on those platforms?

Why are you so eager to believe this story? When no reputable news outlets have reported on it at all?

[jberryhill]

319. Because this guy vouched for it

[LAGC]

320. Ah, the source of authority.

Clearly, between him and the alternative medicine woo being hocked on that MedicalKidnap site, how could anyone not be thoroughly convinced of this story's authenticity?

I am now convinced that babies ARE being medically kidnapped on a regular basis to be sold to underground pedophile child trafficking rings that used to hold their meetings at Comet Pizza. After all, it was said so on the Interwebz.

[pnwmom]

228. This situation was apparently resolved more than a week ago, because this was the mother's

Facebook post then, after moving to the LA hospital.

But don't worry she is receiving the standard of care of any other academic center in the country. Let's just trust these fellows and nurses that they are helping Grace the best they actually know how, and respect the process, People!

[laserhaas]

243. This Teddy Rosevelt speech holds true 100 years later

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

.......It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."....

[laserhaas]

253. There are many instances of CPS & Dr. overreach

How dare a parent question a doctor or case worker.

The nerve of mom & dads - Shheesshh!

[laserhaas]

254. Here is another case apropos

https://medium.com/@jeffwitzeman/forcing-children-into-chemotherapy-when-doctors-become-bullies-8f39b07912c0

[xmas74]

270. The author of that article

Made a documentary about not needing treatment such as chemo to fight cancer. He actually believes that a cause of cancer is blocked emotions.
http://cancercanbekilled.com/about/

[Codeine]

272. So many reputable sources from this poster.

It is to laugh.

[xmas74]

276. I know!

I don't think he actually follows through. He just reads the first sentence, it agrees with what he's presenting and that's all he needs.

If he had read through what he presented he'd have questioned the author.

[xmas74]

257. Passed this story along to a friend who is a retired

Oncology nurse. She worked in a children's hospital for several years before retiring from a research hospital. (Systematic lupus had begun to affect a few organs and she couldn't do the work she loved.)

Anyhow, she said it stinks to high heaven. If they didn't remove the kidney it's because it had spread to both and they're trying to save some function. She also said the chemo comments tell her that the biopsy wasn't needed and it was obvious exactly what they were dealing with. (She mentioned Wilms.)

She said if that's how the mother was acting then yes, she would have been removed and Social Services would step in. She even made a comment about the tray supposedly sitting overnight, saying with a child that would never happen. There would have been an RN, a CNA or a feeding aide in the room to help with feeding and they would have removed the tray after feeding for dietary. She said they would not leave that in the room since they would need to record exactly how much she consumed and if any foods gave her trouble.

She also said that you'll see this type of parent a few times a year. They get their medical license from Google searches and believe everything can be cured with honey. She said they often disrupt the care of not just their own child but interrupt in the treatment of others. She was in the field for thirty years so I'd say she's been around to see it all.

[SidDithers]

259. This is a good post, in a fucking train-wreck of a thread...

Sid

[Hekate]

291. Yes

[pnwmom]

260. Your nurse friend is obviously only familiar with GOOD hospitals,

for her to say that a child would never not be fed in one.

She would probably ALSO say that a patient admitted with pneumonia (a diagnosis from an office visit) would never be left unseen by any hospital doctor that night, not given antibiotics or oxygen. No nurse would ever enter a patient's room, see he was turning blue, enter "cyanosis" into the chart, and then ask just him if he needed anything. If he said, "I don't know," no nurse would EVER write that down in the chart and then just leave the room and not return for 4 hours, right? No previously healthy patient with a strong heart (according to the autopsy) would EVER die like that.

Right? Except that was one of my relatives, and all those things happened according to medical records, and yes, there was a lawsuit, and yes, the widow won.

By the way that was in Nevada, where the hospitals rank 46th in the country, and no parent with other options should let a child with a very rare and very life threatening illness be cared for there. The child is much better off at UCLA, which the mother realizes.

This was her Facebook post about a week ago:

But don't worry she is receiving the standard of care of any other academic center in the country. Let's just trust these fellows and nurses that they are helping Grace the best they actually know how, and respect the process, People!

[laserhaas]

263. Can't trust opines from cheap seats who have nothing to lose

by opinions based upon facts not in evidence.

No case file - No " good faith" finding of facts

[xmas74]

266. She said it's the child who will lose.

She also said that it sounds like bad news and that we'll only know one side since CPS and the hospitals involved cannot speak out on a case of this nature.

She actually said that, as a lapsed Catholic she wasn't much into prayer. She said that what is and isn't being said is very serious for that baby and if she was her nurse she'd be in the chapel after her shift in prayer.

Oh, and that a lump like that didn't appear overnight. If mom found a lump it was there, growing, for months and should have been noticed long before during bath time.

[xmas74]

264. My friend started her career in Nevada

Before moving to Missouri. Missouri doesn't have a great track record.

[pnwmom]

267. Missouri ranks 22 in hospital safety, compared to 46 in Nevada.

So your nurse friend probably takes a certain standard of care for granted.

http://www.hospitalsafetygrade.org/your-hospitals-safety-grade/state-rankings

[xmas74]

268. It depends on the hospital.

We have a few wonderful hospitals that bump up our scores but most are lucky to even be open and do not care a whit about safety.

Hell, the hospitals in Springfield let Dee Dee Blanchard get away with making her own diagnosis for Gypsy for years-and she's not the only one in Missouri to play that game.

[pnwmom]

269. Then if Missouri is middling for hospitals, imagine how bad hospitals in a state ranked 46th must be

I used to have to go to NV several times a year, and if anything had happened there to a family member, I would NEVER have let them remain there for treatment. Our relatives go outside the state for anything serious, either to CA or to Mayo.

[xmas74]

271. As I said, a couple of hospitals made up

For the rest. Truman, Children's Mercy, University and Barnes make up for the rest of the state.

Look up the Gypsy Blanchard case. Those hospitals fell for it for years just because mom said it was true.

[bettyellen]

261. Add that the mom was talking about taking her home to die before the operation and it appears she

Never wanted any surgery at all. The food she complained wasn’t given to the kid is food she brought in herself. She assumed they do t feed kids otherwise? Mom sounds like a moron who thinks she knows it all. It’s sad but it happens.

[xmas74]

265. My friend said every so often you'd catch a grifter

And that the mom's video remind her of those grifters.

[bettyellen]

274. Of course they have a fundraiser and mixed stories on FB- denying they wouldnt allow care while

Last edited Sat Feb 10, 2018, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Fundraising and threatening to sue if they don’t stop treatment- all while saying they are grateful for having discussed it with 13 doctors now and do “respect the process”. I’d think someone else was running the FB fundraiser if I hadn’t heard the mother herself make many nonsensical and conflicting statements. They’ve raised 10$ out of 10K goal. But at least the social workers got the kid insurance.

But I do think she screwed herself when she talked about taking the kid home to die. If that was her mindset, and 9K her biggest concern, I think they ended up doing the right thing. I hope the kid survives this.

[xmas74]

275. I hope so too.

A lump of that size-I just remember when my baby was that age. I knew every bit of her and I'd have known something like that long before.

[pnwmom]

279. You keep acting like $9500 for an unnecessary medical flight is nothing.

That shows your privilege.

The truth:

According to a 2017 GoBankingRates survey, 57 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts, and 39 percent have no savings at all.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/14/how-much-money-the-average-millennial-has-in-savings.html

[LisaL]

281. Do you believe that if child was released to them to drive, they would for sure show up at the UCLA?

[pnwmom]

282. Yes. Because they didn't realize that the surgery had been scheduled till they got there.

They thought they were bringing her for more tests and then, after the tests, a decision would be made about whether she needed surgery or not.

Then, when they realized that the girl had already been scheduled for immediate surgery, they lost confidence in the doctor there (who was a friend of the NV doctor) and wanted to see the Mexican pediatric oncologist instead. (Did you notice that the father's family lives in Mexico? So it's not a crazy thing to do.)

[bettyellen]

285. Their FB fundraiser is to get custody and withdraw from treatement. So nope.

As they said, they were taking her home to die. They still complain about the doctors not taking her kidney- as if this makes them smarter than the doctors. But delaying treatment for her cancer could prove fatal. I’m not surprised they want a scapegoat. Or they’re creating one to help their fund raising efforts.

[pnwmom]

287. That is NOT what their FB page says. And the treatment for the child has NOT been delayed.

The mother signed the consent form -- under duress, but she signed it and the child had the recommended treatment.

I don't know why you think it's so terrible that someone is trying to raise money that can be used to pay back the $9500 that they owe due to that unnecessary Medivac. Oh that's right -- most people have a spare $10K to throw around.

[bettyellen]

288. The fundraiser is called Save Grace AB from UCLA Hospital and its new so....

Yes the mom is allowing people to fundraise for her and accuse the hospital of torturing the kid on one page, where she is unconvincingly claiming to “respect the process” on another page. So she’s using the rage they ginned up attacking the hospital to get donations. Aimed at making sure she can withdraw from treatment when she wants to.

I think she still wants to take the kid home. And I wish it wasn’t to make more videos and PR, but because she cared. But that’s not what aim seeing in her videos.

[bettyellen]

284. The money is for them to fight in court and stop treatment. Thats their FB pitch....

Doesn’t say it’s for the medivac. Why are you making up stories about this whole thing? It’s bad enough the mom Calais to live the care while fighting it on a different page, but seriously? No.

[laserhaas]

293. Another case - in California - similar

https://www.today.com/amp/health/parents-police-removed-our-child-after-we-sought-second-medical-6C9708419

[tammywammy]

301. Another source after the records were released

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/baby-sammy-court-documents-reveal-confli

The mother admitted to taking her child off his heart medication for three weeks without notifying his pediatric cardiologist. Before they took their son to Colorado the pediatric cardiologist gave them a list of names for a second opinion, they never followed through with getting one. Sammy was severely ill with the flu and they were refusing IVs and a feeding tube for an underweight child.

[Codeine]

305. More bullshit half-truths from the OP.

There’s a clear pattern here, and it isn’t a good one.

[stevenleser]

297. The real story here is that there is a chance these parents effectively killed their child.

Any delay in the removal of a kidney in these cases can prove fatal.

It sounds like that is going to be the end result here.

That's the real story. Not the hunting for conspiracies that don't exist.

[xmas74]

298. I've shared this with a few friends.

My friend u mentioned above and another friend who is a case worker fir DFS. She said the whole thing is fishy. If the parents were homeless they probably qualified for CHIP for their child. She said that in a case like this transportation would have been covered since they were far from home. She said the case worker at the hospital in Nevada would have contact with a case worker at UCLA to streamline all the needed paperwork and be sure that everything arrived at the correct place. She also said there's a chance DFS would be in contact with the parents to find if they qualified for any other services.

She said that the out of state transport might have been enough to contact DFS/CPS. She also said it's not meant to be a bad thing and that many parents would normally be thankful for the additional resources.

[LisaL]

306. Insurance likely wouldn't cover transfer because it wouldn't be considered necessary.

The hospital in Nevada was capable of doing the surgery. So it's not like the treatment couldn't take place in Nevada.

[xmas74]

323. She said they had CHIP cover one a few years ago

From Missouri to Illinois. She said it's all about the circumstances and if you have someone on your side to fight it.

In the case she mentioned it was someone visiting the KC area but lived closer to Chicago. It was actually cheaper to do a transport and start treatment there than to have insurance cover out of area, which would be KC.

She said it's all in how it's filed.

[LisaL]

328. My understanding that when child showed up in Nevada, she wasn't signed up for insurance.

So first they would have to sign up for insurance, then convince that insurance to pay for transfer to another state. All while the time is of the essence.

[xmas74]

330. I think some of it would depend on the state.

I would think she'd need to be signed up in California since that is her residence, which would take more time. Then they'd need to pick a plan, still more time. And if the plan does not have rates negotiated in Nevada it could still be thousands cheaper to transport to Cali.

I still don't understand the no insurance. Most pediatricians will inquire if you might be in the range of qualifying for Medicaid or CHIP. And many states have the form online. When my kid's father passed and I applied for SSI survivor benefits for her I was told to go to DFS and see if I qualified for other services. Her doctor always mentions it and there are brochures in the lobby of most offices and hospitals. And it's not just in my state.

[VivienneLove]

333. Ok...unless we missed something in the conversation...

I agree with the surgery being done in Las Vegas, as they stressed they could see the tumor via X-ray and MRI,so...the hospital is probably used to uninsured people. If they had calmly told them that Medi-Cal would have covered it later, they may have been more receptive to treatment. Anyone with knowledge in this area want to chime in?

[LisaL]

336. Yes, you have the wrong idea of what the situation was.

Parents are the ones who wanted to get the second opinion and transfer the child to Ca. Nevada wasn't making them to do it. Hospital in NV wanted to do the surgery right away.

[LiberalFighter]

300. I don't bother with questionable websites.

[VivienneLove]

331. Tragic and disturbing

This is an unbearably tragic situation that seems could not be avoided. There are serious repercussions in our healthcare system, namely the hospital in Las Vegas, understanding the child was uninsured, not taking the parents through the necessary steps to fill out the paperwork ASAP online or fill out the paperwork as needed.for the sake of assuming the statistics are correct, most poor people don't or think they can't afford insurance. California for example, made sure all Affordable Healthcare Act and Medi-Cal participants would be covered and if not receive a fine. Unfortunately,it's possible, however irresponsible, that the couple in question actually WERE homeless, not due to any fires. Either way I fault the hospital for frightening the parents, understandably under duress, not soothingly guiding them through the process instead of freaking them out with Stage 4 cancer! 9500 dollars or we let the child die!

[laserhaas]

332. This is one of the most compassionate, comprehensive

reflection on this saga (outside of pnwmom) to date

Well done!

[LisaL]

334. Except it's not accurate at all.

Parents aren't alleging the hospital demanded $9,500 to treat the child. This amount was for the transfer to another state (CA), that they themselves demanded. Which you should well know, as you posted the info in the link in your OP post.

[VivienneLove]

337. Noted

I didn't post any link, I don't think? Thank you for clarifying. Baffling.

[LisaL]

335. This is absolutely not accurate representation of the situation.

$9500 was to transfer the child to another state-Ca. Hospital in NV wasn't making them to transfer the child, parents are the ones who wanted to transfer the child to Ca.

[VivienneLove]

338. I suppose then...

....thank you for the accurate information. So why not tell them the trip would be covered then? And how much time lapsed between the diagnosis and the eventual unsuccessful removal of the kidney? Enough for the cancer to spread so quickly? Sorry for so many questions in advance 😶

[LisaL]

339. Hospital in NV wasn't going to cover the trip, since they weren't the ones demanding the transfer.

NV wanted to remove the kidney right away. Parents were the ones wanting a second opinion, and wanting child transferred to CA. NV agreed to have child transferred using a medical transfer company, but they weren't going to pay for it.

[VivienneLove]

340. It sounds like...

......the outcome of the operation would have been the same regardless of which hospital they went to, so it's still very sad.

[VivienneLove]

349. Upon a quick google search I came upon this..

https://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2008/06/17/hicksville-infant-drowns_2008061745.html It checks out to be the same woman. Not sure if it is tied to the CPS kidnapping 🤔