Charlie Gard 7

[CaveMum]

Continuation of the discussion.

It looks highly unlikely that there will be a verdict today as GOSH have not yet been able to put their case across. The Gard family had their position heard this morning and currently an expert witness from the US is being questioned via video link.

I forgot there was a guy from Italy also waiting for his say!

sirzy giving evidence via video is one thing, actually acting on it is another. It appears the 'specialist' does not feel qualified enough to do so. Or perhaps he doesn't want too? If he's 'wrong' or making a silly decision without real evidence, it'll reflect very badly.

this is a farce

thy just want credit for trying some exprimnt that might make thm famous

It doesn't get better, does it

I would think we can expect today's proceedings to be wound up shortly.
Justice Francis did say on Monday that it may take him until Friday to reach a judgment but it's looking as it may not be resolved tomorrow, IMO.

this was all supposd to be about new evidence i havnt seen anything suggesting that

If someone from Italy is hanging on the line, I guess they may take his evidence before winding up?

I'm assuming that the doctor giving evidence is credible and a specialist in his field and probably knows more about mitochondrial disease than most people on this thread - I don't think disparaging his evidence is anymore helpful than the CA calling GOSH doctors quacks etc.

I've only just seen about the witness in Italy, yes indeed perhaps there will be time made for their evidence.

I hope it doesn't last much longer as I think the parents should spend as much time as possible with their son. I understand they chose to go to court and have to be there as they asked for an appeal but I still feel sorry for them at not being able to spend Charlie's (possible) last few days with their son fully.

This is the doctor who earlier today who said he couldn't see any signs of brain damage and earlier this year said that, after receiving reports from GOSH, he accepted his treatment would be futile but was prepared to do it if it was paid for.
Has he agreed to do it for free now ?

I imagine that being called a "quack" and having his scientific credentials, expertise and motive questioned are the reasons why he wanted to keep his anonymity...

Poor little baby. This whole situation is so heartbreaking.

hasnt mntiond that smiling

I was under the impression that it had been offered for free and he is the unnamed Dr in this article. I might be wrong though.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlie-gard-donald-trump-tweet-us-hospital-offers-free-treatment-terminally-ill-baby-president-a7822721.html%3Famp

Witness says, more confidently this time, that he would be prepared to make a brief trip to London to see Charlie. #CharlieGard

I do wonder if this guy hasn't been pressganged into acting as a witness, though he doesn't really want to get involved.

However, clinical examination would not necessarily help him assess how much brain function is reversible.

I don't understand - I thought the expert said that the treatment wouldn't work because of Charlie's brain damage but is now saying he hasn't seen any notes for his condition.

so whats th point of him coming?

Now says that he would come to London but clinical examination would not necessarily help him assess how much brain function is reversible. He could only tell how far the brain dysfunction is permanent is to try the therapy.

So - his evidence is that he has no idea whatsoever whether his treatment will achieve anything.

Only way to find out how much brain damage was reversible would be try the therapy, he says. (Murmurs of approval from Charlie's parents).

I think we need to be fair here; this guy is a specialist in mitrochondrial conditions, not neurology. Presumably the areas are very niche.

I deal with residential property law but wouldn't have much more than a basic understanding of commercial property specifics.

The way I've read the tweets is that he would like a paediatric neurologist to look at the specific questions of whether there is brain damage or brain dysfunction. Granted this should have been done already but this witness isn't going to give a definitive answer on something if he doesn't feel qualified to.

Also I think the posts describing him as a "quack" are just as ignorant as some of the CA posts getting at the GOSH doctors. He is a qualified doctor, a specialist in his area. Just because he disagrees with other specialists doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing.

So this guy is a mito specialist, NOT a neurologist? Then now is he supposed to come to a better conclusion about Charlie's brain than GOSH?

The brain damage seems to be the crux of the issue here.

Armstrong: you now say there’s a higher chance of therapy crossing blood/brain barrier. Expert: yes.