Charlie Gard 6

[CaveMum]

New thread so that we can await this morning's hearing.

Let's try to keep this one as sensible and measured as the past 5 threads have been.

Fingers crossed that this can all be resolved today and that Charlie and his parents can find peace.

If he does not decide today,then connie and co are left dangling, which is a bit shitty really.

He said on Monday he would hear evidence into tomorrow if required. He's also said clearly that he wants to move quickly given the likelihood that Charlie is suffering. I imagine he will look to rule tomorrow, or as soon after that as humanly possible.

I don't know if we will hear for or about them in this hearing, but I think it's worth pointing out that Charlie has had a court-appointed guardian ad litem representing him in the process. This isn't a "guardian" in the sense of someone who'd be looking after him if he weren't in hospital, it's a person appointed by the courts to represent Charlie's interests, since both parties in a case like this can feasibly have other interests (parents may have financial interests or simply bad blood with institution, institution may have become invested in proving they are right etc). The guardian therefore means there is someone involved in the process whose sole agenda is the child's wellbeing. Charlie's guardian consulted various doctors and experts in their own right and came to the same conclusion/recommendation as GOSH. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just read about this during some of the earlier hearings and hopefully remembered it right.)

Yes Mucky

Gabs, its 50% chance that the treatment will cross the brain=blood barrier, not the chance it will actually work

dint th original doctor say that charlis condition wa worse than he was tol though an that treatment prob wouldnt work

I think the question now is how much damage has been already sustained and is that reversible. Not a tweet!! My view

Armstrong now addressing the court on detailed medical research.

Armstrong: evidence that treatment has more than 50% chance of crossing the blood/brain barrier undermines finding that treatment is futile.

Only if there is also evidence that it would be of any benefit having done so, surely? And indeed that it would not harm him?

50%? That's from the at-present theoretical evidence, is it?

Is the American doctor (have they been named? If they have I missed it) a hospital/medical doctor or research/PHD doctor?

now its 50%? this is crazy

Indeed - and even if this was true it's not going to undo Charlie's catastrophic brain damage

Except that they don't accept that either ...

Praying sense prevails here

I think the doctor in the US is at a hospital in new York.

50% chance of crossing the blood brain barrier - but no evidence of what the medication will actually do for Charlie and his type of mito once it's there. That's still theoretical.

Sluttybartfast, thanks for that.

ah right well makes sense i suppose

Armstrong: it’s not possible to do clincal trials of the proposed treatment because so few children suffer from Charlie’s condition.

Armstrong appears to have fuck-all of substance. I don't know why I'm surprised by that. I suppose so much noise has been made that even I bought into the fact that they might have something "new" to say.

American doctor in original judgement was medical doctor

April judgement

So there's a half chance that it is even able to do its proposed action, before even starting on
a) mito in general or
b) Charlie's kind of MDS or
c) curing existing brain damage

The "Dr" in America is a scientist, not a medical Dr. Not sure of that makes any difference.

Could someone tell me/point me to something that says about what the treatment is that they are trying to secure?

Sluttybartfast, to be honest, I diddnt think they would have anything new, otherwise it would have been well broadcasted

Armstrong: respectable body of scientific opinion supports applying this therapy to Charlie.

Is the American doctor (have they been named? If they have I missed it) a hospital/medical doctor or research/PHD doctor?

Judge has said doctors must not be named in the press. I assume his credentials/qualifications will be set out when he gives evidence.

so what armstrong saying is thy want to expriment on him

shocking

From the Barmy:

On BBC 2 news it says the Dr Who offered treatment is giving evidence in court at 2pm .

Well it made me chuckle. He probably knows as much as the Barmy do.