Charles on… anything that comes along

From the wonderful Media Matters, a great post with a transcript of a row between, one the one side a dim anchor and a dim pro-parent anchor, and on the other a very clued-up neurologist who had actually examined Mrs Schiavo, rather than reading the news wires quoting people who’d met someone who once saw a guy who, you know, had read something online about persistent vegetative state.

Bear in mind that Mrs Schiavo finally died 13 days after her feeding (and water) tubes were removed. Now read on.

Example extract (the dim anchor is called Lisa Daniels, from MSNBC, aided and abetted by dim anchor “host” Joe Scarborough, and the doctor is Ronald Cranford):

SCARBOROUGH: Now, the question on everybody’s mind tonight is this: How is Terri Schiavo doing? You know, it’s been 10 days. She is starting her 11th day now without food and water. Let’s go back to Pinellas Park [Florida], where Lisa Daniels [MSNBC daytime anchor] is standing by — Lisa.
DANIELS: Well, Joe, at this point, we are going to delve into the medical aspect of the story. I want to bring in Dr. Ronald Cranford. He’s a neurologist at Hennepin Medical Center in Minneapolis. And, Doctor, before we continue, I want our viewers to understand what your role was in the legal case. I understand that Michael Schiavo and his team asked you to examine his wife. Is that correct?
CRANFORD: Yes. Yes, they did.
DANIELS: And from my understanding, I just want to be accurate, you examined Terri Schiavo for about 45 minutes. Is that right?
CRANFORD: I think 42 minutes, but 45 is fine, sure.
DANIELS: All right. Well, we want to be accurate here. What was your conclusion at the end of –
[crosstalk]
CRANFORD: Wait a minute. You are not accurate on a lot of things here. You’re saying a lot of — she’s not starving to death. Do you understand that? She is dehydrating to death.
DANIELS: Well, why do you say that? Tell us how you came to that conclusion?
[crosstalk]
CRANFORD: Can I tell you why? Because I have done this 25 to 50 times. I don’t know how many times Joe [Scarborough] has done it [precisely zero - CA], but I’ve done it 25 to 50 times in similar situations. And they die within 10 to 14 days. Nancy Cruzan did not die in six days [as guest Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition suggested earlier in the program]. She died in 11 days, 11.5 hours. And Terri Schiavo will die within 10 to 14 days. And they are dying of dehydration, not starvation. And that’s just a lie. And Joe doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about. And you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
DANIELS: Well –
CRANFORD: I have been at the bedside of these patients. I know what they die from. I’ve seen them die. And this is all bogus. It’s all just a bunch of crap that you are saying. It’s totally wrong.
DANIELS: Well, with all due respect, Doctor, it sounds like you think that you know what you are talking about, so let’s ask you about that.
CRANFORD: Sure.
DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?
CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.
DANIELS: Why are you so sure, Doctor?
CRANFORD: Because I examined her. The court-appointed guardian examined her. Four neurologists at the hospital where she was has said she’s carried a diagnosis of vegetative state for 12 years. Every neurologist that examined her, except for Dr. [William] Hammesfahr [a neurologist selected by Terri Schiavo’s parents], who is a charlatan, has said she is in vegetative state. That’s what the court found. Just because you don’t like –
[crosstalk]
DANIELS: Doctor, was a CAT scan — Doctor, your critics would ask you, was a CAT scan used? Was an MRI taken? Were any of these tests taken?
CRANFORD: You don’t know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002. We spent a lot of time in court showing the irreversible — you don’t have copies of those CAT scans? How can you say that?
The CAT scans are out there, distributed to other people. You have got to look at the facts. The CAT scan is out there. It shows severe atrophy of the brain. The autopsy is going to show severe atrophy of the brain. And you’re asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?

How could they be so stupid? Because they’re rolling media people, who don’t bother with facts, just how the news feels. Hell, when you’ve got a President who’s been happily signing peoples’ death warrants as governor of Texas, who’s able to then turn around and sign a law insisting someone should be uselessly kept alive, why bother consistency or information?

But I do urge you to read the whole thing. It’s even better. You just have to love “with all due respect, Doctor, it sounds like you think that you know what you are talking about” spoken by an MSNBC anchor to a neurologist - one who’s been through this process “25 to 50 times in similar situations. And they die within 10 to 14 days.” (And he was right: it was 13.) It all makes ER sound like real life.

Update: on Andrew Brown’s advice in the comments, the signoff from Scarborough. He says: You know what? This is the disappointing thing. You try to have a conversation. You try to talk about what is going on. And I found this as an attorney, too. I have been attorneys for plaintiffs. I have been attorneys for defendants. And what I always find out is, there are certain doctors — I am not claiming that this doctor is a charlatan. I don’t know his body of work. I am not claiming that he is a hired gun.
But too many doctors out there can be bought off by attorneys on either side.

Uh - yeah. And some doctors simply know what they’re talking about, you dolt.

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• How does BT decide which order to upgrade its exchanges to broadband? (7 November 2004; score: 41.73%)
• It's quiet. Too quiet. But it's not my fault (11 October 2006; score: 39.03%)
• Zeno and the slow train to broadband (6 June 2005; score: 37.6%)

OK, so according to March 29th’s Apple Insider, the latest developer release of Tiger (OSX 10.4) is “deemed a final candidate.”*

But how close does that mean the real thing is?

I’d say it’s rather further off than mid-April. Here’s why.

Let’s look back at Panther, aka 10.3 - that version that most Apple users are now on.

Back in 2003, on September 8 Apple Insider said that Panther version 7b59 was “nearer final candidate”.

Then on October 1, Macrumors’s forums noted that “there are rumblings that Panther is quickly approaching Final Candidate status”, noting that it was up to build 7b83/85.

On October 8, Apple announced that Panther was ready, and would ship on October 24.

On October 14, build 7b85 was released to developers - at that time, a sure sign it was the final thing.

And on October 24, the product itself hit the shelves - and was rapidly snapped up.

So anyway, that’s four weeks from the first mention of “final candidate” to the official announcement, and two more to getting your hands on the thing. So if we take Apple Insider’s March 29 item as correct (which you might or might not), then we should expect an announcement around the end of April, and product a couple of weeks later.

That’s my analysis. I’m pretty happy with it; it ties in with other stuff I’ve noticed here and there which I’m not discussing, and which is far from definitive. Let’s see how I do, hmm?

*in case you didn’t know how the development process works: big products like this go through many internal betas, then reach “final candidate” (there can be many), and then “Golden Master” - which gets pressed and shipped.

Update April 1: OK, as comments have noted, Apple Insider says Tiger is now GM with build 8a428, adding “Some retailers, including Amazon, which is offering a $35 mail-in rebate, have already begun taking pre-orders of Mac OS X Tiger, indicating that they expect to thip [sic] the product within 30 days.”

But if you look at the timing above, even if Tiger is now GM, there could easily be another week before it’s announced, and 24 days before it appears on shelves. I’m not unsettled from my prediction. Yet.

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Apple's Tiger debuts April 29: was I close enough? (12 April 2005; score: 156.77%)
• And since everyone else is saying it... here's my "Apple on Intel" story. From April 2000 (6 June 2005; score: 65.03%)
• Get it while it's late: my exclusive review of Tiger (you know.. that new software thing) (2 May 2005; score: 52.94%)