it’s possible that I’m misunderstanding here but I think the sepsis diagnosis is from a retrospective review of her file. at the time there was no sepsis diagnosis. they even specifically call out that doctor for having been under review for missing diagnoses in the past

After two hours of IV fluids, one dose of antibiotics, and some Tylenol, Crain’s fever didn’t go down, her pulse remained high, and the fetal heart rate was abnormally fast, medical records show. Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her.

Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier, the Texas Medical Board found that he had failed to diagnose appendicitis in one patient and syphilis in another. In the latter case, the board noted that his error “may have contributed to the fetal demise of one of her twins.” The board issued an order to have Hawkins’ medical practice monitored; the order was lifted two years later. (Hawkins did not respond to several attempts to reach him.)

the second ER did not diagnose her with sepsis, they diagnosed her with strep throat and a UTI. some portion of responsibility IMO lies with that OB-GYN for screwing up that diagnosis, although i understand the larger point of the article seems to be that doctors are reluctant to diagnose or treat really any condition in pregnant women for fear of getting legally crushed by the state

ive always imagined that test audiences believed it to be a prosthetic and therefore a deliberate creative choice by lars von trier. which is fucking hilarious, because it so thoroughly cheapens the serious arthouse themes he was playing with of like sex and nature and depression if you believe another theme he wanted to showcase was “and the guy has an absolutely monstrous hog”

ok, can I see the data?

really? i loved it. it’s been a while since i watched it but here are some of the things i liked (spoilers ahead)

i overall just appreciate that the film had some ambition to try to do something weird and I think for the most part it was successful. and, not to nitpick your nitpick but i think they establish that everyone on the expedition had military experience

the people we should be concerned about getting their hands on this data are not like, goateed hackers. they’re banks, insurance companies, recruiters. those are some pretty powerful lobbies

the good news is it’s very easy to get some practice

look, I read the Economist every time I’m at my dentist’s office, so I’m obviously a little bit ahead of the curve in terms of political literacy, but I’m not sure I understand what this comic is trying to say, given that the events it depicts did not literally happen. could someone explain what this comic means? it would be a great help.

unrelatedly, but just as urgently, is there anyone who is an expert in going to the bathroom? I got to the part where my pants are fully pulled down around my ankles, but I’m not sure how to sit if I have to make both doodie and weewee. I’m guessing I face the tank? thanks in advance.

they’re not really doing this, are they? i assumed it was a clickbait outrage farm concept that would never see the light of day

i kind of agree that it feels slightly weird to see lewd photos of an actress that i previously had only ever seen playing a teen. but then again, here we both are

yeah but you used to be able to use it. like if your family friend Margaret was eating five zucchinis at once lengthwise you would say “Margaret, stop being such a courgette slut”. or if a pressure cooker full of oatmeal exploded and covered her face with oatmeal you could say that Margaret got oatmeal bukkaked to explain to the intake nurse at the hospital.

nowadays you cant say that kind of thing. because of woke.

running a picture of myself through the app fifty times instead of getting an MRI

i would try to design a series of trials to determine which of you were hotter starting with the obvious feats of strength and riddles and what have you but i would be forced to consult the nation’s three wisest sages after you tied in every event and the first one would say that since you existed in different locations one of you must have walked an extra two steps and must therefore be more fit but the wisest sage would point out that that you might have been somehow clonebirthed at an offset position so i would behead the first sage and then the second sage would suggest that if you were truly indistinguishable both options would result in the same outcome but the wisest sage would point out that should a method of distinguishing between the two be developed later i might run the risk of being exposed as having chosen the lesser twin and the second sage would say but there is no such method my lord and the wisest sage would say ah my lord but i have invented one and so i would obviously behead the second sage and then i would ask the wisest sage how i could choose between the two of you when by all measures you were identical and the wisest sage would say ah my lord but one of them is more lucky and he would flip a coin to assign a winner and when the coin had landed and i had found the luckier twin i would reward the wisest sage with 1000 gold pieces and then i would fuck the unlucky one because she would have lower self esteem

dinosaurs may have had big honkers there’s simply no way to know whether or not they had big mommy milkers the soft tissue of the gazongas is not preserved in the fossil record experts are divided on the question of whether dinosaurs had huge jugs each outcome is equally likely there is a fifty percent chance that every dinosaur was blessed with real big hoohas