I don't dispute his credentials at all. But that doesn't make him omniscient and infallible.
I'm only saying that those two observations of his - after the fact (how convenient) - are questionable. Your rebuttal misrepresents almost everything I wrote.
You wrote, "I disagree that they allowed his mother in the ambulance only because he w…
I don't dispute his credentials at all. But that doesn't make him omniscient and infallible.
I'm only saying that those two observations of his - after the fact (how convenient) - are questionable. Your rebuttal misrepresents almost everything I wrote.
You wrote, "I disagree that they allowed his mother in the ambulance only because he was dead." but that's NOT what I said. I only said that that - dead OR dying - was equally plausible as HIS explanation.
With regard to the second heart attack, I mentioned that as a counterargument to his saying that Hamlin was "stable". How many of those 50% "second heart attack" victims were considered "stable" after the first but before the second?
And again, the "this" in the statement "...because they had never seen anything like this..." is NOT referencing something akin to "gruesome head injuries and broken and dislocated legs". The "this" is referencing CPR being performed, and for NINE futile minutes, on a player ON the field, AND, that player being DFIB'd - unsuccessfully - ON the field. I guarantee you they have NEVER seen either of those, let alone BOTH of those, on the playing field, ever. That, IMO, is why they were ashen-faced and despondent. Not because they were thinking, "OMG, I got jabbed, I wonder if I'm next".
I don't dispute his credentials at all. But that doesn't make him omniscient and infallible.
I'm only saying that those two observations of his - after the fact (how convenient) - are questionable. Your rebuttal misrepresents almost everything I wrote.
My rebuttal was my opinion, that’s all. I never said Dr McCullough was either omniscient or infallible. I wrote what I best remembered him saying. I believe he was giving his opinion as a cardiologist, what happened to Hamlin. What he said made sense to me. That neither makes it infallible or omniscient, he was asked and he replied. I may have rewrote what I believed I heard not exactly as it was stated. The media has become nothing but opinion and conjecture as they simply won’t ask pertinent questions and those with a reason to lie are blanketed by a complicit media.
I assume, though I do not know that you are a doctor or have some kind of pertinent medical degree. Your opinion would carry great weight, but still it would be opinion and conjecture since you were not on that field and saw what the rest of us were allowed to see. Conjecture at best, answered prayers at it’s finest, and rabbit holes everywhere.
I don't dispute his credentials at all. But that doesn't make him omniscient and infallible.
I'm only saying that those two observations of his - after the fact (how convenient) - are questionable. Your rebuttal misrepresents almost everything I wrote.
You wrote, "I disagree that they allowed his mother in the ambulance only because he was dead." but that's NOT what I said. I only said that that - dead OR dying - was equally plausible as HIS explanation.
With regard to the second heart attack, I mentioned that as a counterargument to his saying that Hamlin was "stable". How many of those 50% "second heart attack" victims were considered "stable" after the first but before the second?
And again, the "this" in the statement "...because they had never seen anything like this..." is NOT referencing something akin to "gruesome head injuries and broken and dislocated legs". The "this" is referencing CPR being performed, and for NINE futile minutes, on a player ON the field, AND, that player being DFIB'd - unsuccessfully - ON the field. I guarantee you they have NEVER seen either of those, let alone BOTH of those, on the playing field, ever. That, IMO, is why they were ashen-faced and despondent. Not because they were thinking, "OMG, I got jabbed, I wonder if I'm next".
I don't dispute his credentials at all. But that doesn't make him omniscient and infallible.
I'm only saying that those two observations of his - after the fact (how convenient) - are questionable. Your rebuttal misrepresents almost everything I wrote.
My rebuttal was my opinion, that’s all. I never said Dr McCullough was either omniscient or infallible. I wrote what I best remembered him saying. I believe he was giving his opinion as a cardiologist, what happened to Hamlin. What he said made sense to me. That neither makes it infallible or omniscient, he was asked and he replied. I may have rewrote what I believed I heard not exactly as it was stated. The media has become nothing but opinion and conjecture as they simply won’t ask pertinent questions and those with a reason to lie are blanketed by a complicit media.
I assume, though I do not know that you are a doctor or have some kind of pertinent medical degree. Your opinion would carry great weight, but still it would be opinion and conjecture since you were not on that field and saw what the rest of us were allowed to see. Conjecture at best, answered prayers at it’s finest, and rabbit holes everywhere.