It's not sure at what point the next ripple of chaos was intentionally dropped into the onslaught of events to come. What is clear is at what point Lindsey and Cheryl first realized the chaos, as documented by Cheryl on the day of the birth.
Cheryl's notes: "No one in the midwife has mentioned HIV in the six months Lindsey has been coming in. Why now?"
As mentioned previously, Lindsey made a conscious decision to disclose her positive HIV status during the very first OB meeting. Having dealt with the reality of HIV for over two decades, it has become an integral aspect of our lives. Nevertheless, we were well aware that certain factions, and perhaps even a majority within the medical community, could become alarmist at the mere suggestion of not administering copious amounts of harmful drugs, regardless of the patient's clinical status. By candidly discussing Lindsey's HIV status early on in the pregnancy, we sought to gauge the Mayo Clinic's response to the situation. This approach served as a litmus test to assess their temperament. If we detected any signs of hysteria or undue panic, we were fully prepared to seek alternative medical care at another hospital more attuned to the nuanced realities of living with HIV.
Having had prior experience with HIV during Lindsey's childhood, we possessed a certain level of comfort in managing the condition. Back then, Dr. Henry demonstrated confidence in Lindsey's case, recognizing that she did not require AZT treatment as she exhibited no clinical deficits. Interestingly, the fact that Lindsey was assigned the same patient number as an adult she had during her childhood served as a poignant reminder that doctors had complete access to her comprehensive medical history when she entered the door to the OB department. This realization further reinforced the notion that any potential issues or concerns related to Lindsey's HIV status would undoubtedly surface early on in the pregnancy. With access to her medical files from childhood, doctors would have a clear understanding of her past medical journey, which could influence their approach and disposition toward her current condition during the pregnancy.
Lindsey and Cheryl documented what occurred at the first OB meeting with nurse Knutson on June 13, 2012.
Lindsey's notes: "On June 13, 2012, I went to the Charlton Bldg. for my first midwife visit. This was at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. My mom and I followed the admitting nurse to a private room, and discussed the blood work that is normally done on new expectant mom. I explained I was adopted from Romania in 1990, and I have tested positive for HIV as a child. At that time the nurse stated that I should not breast feed since I [am] HIV+. No other information was offered that day or any other time during the following 6 months of the pre-natal visits to Mayo that followed. HIV was never mentioned again.
Cheryl's notes: "I went with Lindsey to every single midwife visit. We always made the trip to Rochester MORE than just a visit to the doctor. We had fun, went out for lunch, and to the children's shops to see what was new for babies!
Her first midwife visit, June 13, 2012, became tense immediately, as Lindsey explained that she was HIV positive, and therefore did not need to be tested for HIV.
She told the admitting nurse or midwife – we're not sure what her title was, and subsequent investigating provided no further clues- that the drug AZT had almost killed her when she'd taken it the first two years of her life, and she didn't want it to kill her baby.
The nurse who was filling out the computer form didn't want to skip that test, but Lindsey insisted. The meeting did end on a positive note, although a doctor, someone with more authority, came in and removed the HIV test from the list. "
Cheryl: During the next 6 months, HIV was never brought up. Since I was at every single appointment, I know that for a fact. Lindsey was not verbally informed or given a single pamphlet about HIV."
Suppose we were to envision the initial interaction between Lindsey and Mayo Clinic at the start of her pregnancy as a small pebble of chaos cast gently into the tranquil waters of circumstance. In that case, the initial ripples it generated might have seemed deceptively inconsequential. However, that seemingly innocuous pebble would soon prove to be the most potent and impactful, setting off a chain of events with profound implications. From that point forward, a multitude of ripples would emanate throughout the course of the pregnancy, eventually coalescing into resounding waves on the day of Rico's birth. This leads us to an enigmatic question: who held these metaphorical pebbles, who directed their trajectory, and was the ensuing symphony of interwoven ripples orchestrated?
When viewed from Lindsey's perspective, it becomes evident that experienced medical professionals had been well aware of her HIV status for an extended period, primarily due to Mayo Clinic's possession of her childhood medical records and the conversation she and Cheryl had with the OB nurse at the outset of the pregnancy. Yet, as Rico stood on the brink of entering the world, Lindsey's HIV status had transformed into a contentious issue, with Rico seemingly held as a symbolic hostage.
The deliberate introduction of chaos into Lindsey and her family's lives unfolds as a nuanced symphony of events, gradually revealing itself with an apparent predetermined complexity. While certain incidents might initially be dismissed as mere chance, they ultimately interconnect and synchronize with the parallel actions of medical professionals, legal representatives, and even a judge. This narrative revolves around the delicate balance between our interpretations of events and the underlying reality, as well as the enigmatic interplay between the concepts of facts and truth.
Chapter six
In the NICU
Following the abrasive maneuvers suffered from birth, Rico will now reside in the NICU for 22 days and likely experience up to 16 painful daily procedures (Carbajal, 2018). This early experience of pain influences immediate and long-term outcomes. It can lead to structural and functional alterations in brain development, extending to aspects such as head circumference and overall body growth. Despite what should have been an understanding of pain and stress in neonates, the American Academy of Pediatrics finds that situations like this, along with the consequences, continue to be inconsistently assessed and managed.
Insurance billing confirms that Lindsey had been given pain medication during the birth. However, as the resident was busy impressing his peers and gaining life experiences, the same billing is void of any pain medication for Rico during the birth process and the abrasive maneuvers that followed. Beyond the apparent ethical obligation to reduce Rico's pain, clinical studies show that not medicating a neonate during the abrasive procedures Rico endured inevitably leads to airway injury and possible hemorrhage (IVH intraventricular hemorrhage) in the ventricles of the brain.
Upon Rico's arrival in the NICU, the disarray in his care continues to escalate. Many essential aspects of his care have been removed, including vital practices like skin-to-skin contact, which has been shown to effectively manage neonatal pain and can be measured both physiologically and behaviorally (Johnson et al., 2014). Additionally, research indicates that breastfeeding or providing breastmilk can help alleviate pain in neonates undergoing painful procedures (Shah et al., 2012). Moreover, studies by Riddell et al. in 2015 suggest that support during invasive medical procedures, such as non-nutritive sucking, swaddling/tucking, and rocking/holding, are crucial, yet these practices are absent in a NICU setting.
Rico's continued respiratory distress and need for further respiratory support explain his transfer to the NICU. However, nothing in the available documents explains the repeated calls to the pharmacy for increasingly higher doses of fentanyl on the first day followed by two more days, except that therapeutic hypothermia seems to have been administered but not documented. For a newborn that is already in respiratory distress, it would be contra-indicated to use an opiate drug that, by description, leads to slow, shallow breaths unless there was a more concerning indication for its use. The only other elements listed in the documents were pneumothorax and HIV, neither of which would benefit from fentanyl.
The additional undocumented drugs Rico was given that first day and the days that followed would not have been used to address HIV, with the exception of AZT. The lack of documentation, as well as the use of these drugs, would likely be due to unpalatable legal concerns. It's also clear that neither HIV nor pneumothorax would have required Rico to be strapped in bed, remaining flat on his back in a metal cage, staring at a fluorescent light.
Insurance billing reveals that on Rico's first day, he was given two separate doses of Atropine injections, which may have been used to counteract a slow heart rate from the fentanyl or possibly another undocumented resuscitation; however, atropine is generally not indicated in neonatal resuscitation. In a normal situation, the heart rate is a spontaneously controlled body function, so a slow heart rate in a newborn is almost always related to hypoxia and not the nerves that control body functions. Once again, the word "hypoxia" is absent from all medical records.
The deliberate exclusion of Rico's vital signs during his first few days of life, along with the seemingly random and unexplained administration of drugs, points to a pattern that underscores the gravity of what occurred during his tumultuous birth and maybe even more so in the moments following his birth. It would not be a legitimate claim that vitals are not part of a patient's files; Rico's files are littered with vitals, just not the ones of his first few days. The fact that this lack of competent information and vitals has followed Rico from one hospital to another indicates that this lack of detail was not simply the result of a resident's inexperience.
Rico's entre of chemicals on just his first day included four separate Heparin injections for suspected or anticipated blood clots, also known as Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Increased bleeding or clotting in neonate results from disruption of the "balance," further supporting there having been undocumented perinatal asphyxia, which can alternate the balance of blood flow, resulting in abnormalities that may lead to clotting of the blood. "There are no well-controlled studies on heparin use in pediatric patients," and the amount required to maintain patency and avoid adverse effects in a newborn is unknown." Yet, this flow of Heparin into Rico will continue for six days.
In the intricate tapestry of Rico's medical journey, there emerges an unrecorded administration of sodium acetate, a substance often employed in neonatal care for the gradual correction of metabolic acidosis. This enigmatic occurrence hints at an underlying and elusive condition, metabolic acidosis, a rare and scarcely documented anomaly. Such circumstances further bolster the growing suspicion of birth asphyxia, a crucial component that sets the stage for undiagnosed hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE). With each revelation, Rico's early moments unfold as a mosaic of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, painting a portrait of a newborn navigating through a succession of needless challenges.
By the second day of Rico's life, John initiated a request for "hard copies of what testing is being completed and [wanted to] speak face to face with the person that performed the lab tests." Astonishingly, Mayo Clinic staff declined this simple request. One might wonder why. It should have been well within the father's rights to be fully informed about his son's first 24 hours of existence. However, it's crucial to emphasize that day two would have been one day earlier than the resident's last revision of his account detailing Rico's initial moment of life.
John "continued to question why CNP Hobbs was unable to give [John] what tests had been performed on the infant thus far." Hobbs stated, "I would not be able to provide them at this time." John asked, "Do I need to file a police report?" Hobbs said, "he could if he felt the need." How can it be that in America, the parents of a newborn are denied access to medical records at any point? Was this Mayo's continuation of the same domination they had cast over Lindsey just minutes after giving birth, or was there more to it?
Hobbs also writes, "The father of the baby was insistent that he receive hard copies of what testing is being completed…and know what proteins [doctors] are looking for." John was strikingly quick to adapt to the situation, and at the time, Cheryl and I were buried under legal concerns, so it's not known what proteins John was looking for. However, what becomes evident is that the aftermath of Rico's tumultuous birth, characterized by tissue damage and potential inflammatory or infectious responses, may have triggered the instantaneous release of various proteins from the liver. These proteins, acting as silent narrators of the immediate damage incurred, possess the potential to offer glimpses into Rico's future trajectory, lending valuable insights into his future.
One of the tests that the Mayo Clinic refused to give to John was a CRP test, which measures the amount of C-reactive protein in the blood. The liver produces this protein as a response to the activity of the white blood cells fighting infection or inflammation in the body. Healthcare professionals do not routinely conduct CRP tests in newborns unless there is a perceived need arising from potential postnatal complications. An average CRP level in a newborn would range from 2-5 mg/L, with an average upper level of 10 mg/L.
Rico had just spent a nine-month immersion in amniotic fluids. These fluids have positive and protective effects so broad that they are used for treating tissue injury, reducing inflammation, and various medical conditions. It has also been hypothesized the fluid could be nebulized to reduce COVID-associated respiratory failure. Having just come from this environment, one would expect Rico's CRP level at birth to fall within the normal range, not exceeding 10.0 mg/L. However, within hours of his delivery, the initial CRP test revealed a strikingly elevated value of 21.6 mg/L. Subsequently, a follow-up test conducted 24 hours later unveiled a further doubling of the CRP level, reaching a concerning 42.8 mg/L. The escalating trend of the CRP levels, doubling twice within 48 hours, presents compelling evidence of moderate to severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) resulting from hepatic hypoxia.
Despite the CRP numbers doubling twice in 48 hours, clinical documentation and insurance billing will record that no other $57.42 CRP tests were conducted for an inexplicable period of 27 days following the initial alarming results. If this is indeed accurate, it represents an egregious case of malpractice. It is utterly inconceivable that such a critical diagnostic tool would be disregarded for an extended period, jeopardizing Rico's well-being.
Regrettably, the distressing reality became evident when the subsequent CRP test was finally administered on the 27th day. The CRP level, which ideally should not exceed ten mg/L, skyrocketed to a shocking 201.4 mg/L. Such an exceptionally high CRP level, surpassing 100 mg/L, signifies systemic inflammation attributed to bacterial infection, significant trauma, and, in Rico's case, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE). Prolonged elevation of CRP levels is known to increase the risk of coronary artery disease, leading to the potential for blood vessel damage and subsequent life-threatening conditions such as strokes, heart attacks, and heart disease. Tragically, it is now understood that Rico's sudden demise can be attributed to a heart-related event, possibly linked to the lingering consequences of elevated CRP levels and the resulting damage to his cardiovascular system.
The previous lack of information and an abundance of misinformation suggests that more CPR tests were performed during those 27 days, and the numbers went much higher than 201.4 mg/L. If medical professionals deliberately refrained from billing insurance for the modest fee of $57.42, they could have discreetly withheld these critical results from official records, including insurance billing documents. This omission leaves me with no alternative explanation.
Astoundingly, within the nursing records, the only reference to an infection, apart from HIV, emerges on the 16th day. In these notes, RN Omdahl characterizes Rico's condition as displaying signs of "highly suspicious or documented infection." This isolated observation, coupled with the multitude of antibiotics prescribed, implies that Rico's well-being was compromised by an underlying bacterial infectious process, further intricating an already complex medical scenario. The lack of comprehensive documentation concerning this infection appears to be a deliberate omission, instilling doubt regarding the credibility of any clinical documents ever made available to Lindsey.
Through the intricate web of insurance billing, a disquieting truth emerges, shedding light on the concealed aspects of Rico's medical journey that doctors were unwilling to share openly with his parents. The comprehensive insurance records unveil a succession of consecutive procedures, including X-rays, ultrasounds, and MRIs. Notably, none of these procedures can be attributed to the effects of HIV. It becomes evident that the medical team's focus was not solely on assessing the presence or absence of damage. Still, instead, their attention was fixated on comprehending the full scope of the physical and neurological injuries inflicted by the insidious combination of oxygen deprivation and tissue harm.
Amidst the intricate choreography of doctors and lawyers vying for prominence in their contentious engagement concerning Lindsey and the viral specter of HIV, a poignant irony emerges. Rico's therapeutic journey embarks with an array of drugs, diligently administered from his very first day, predominantly tailored to combat bacterial infections. The paradox deepens as one contemplates the evolving landscape: a plethora of information now circulating among Mower County's authorities, poised to cast condemnation upon the family, only fixates on the viral specter.
The story that once set out to expose the profound injustices and systemic failures that led to the tragic fate of Lindsey and Rico has now shifted towards unraveling the enigmatic events that transpired within the confines of a research hospital. It is essential to acknowledge that Lindsey and Rico's untimely demise was not directly attributable to the HIV infection or the administration of HIV drugs thrust upon Rico. Instead, the root of their loss lies in the label of being diagnosed with HIV, a diagnosis that carries with it profound consequences and insidious implications. The repercussions of this diagnosis rippled through their lives, leaving them vulnerable to the relentless waves of prejudice, discrimination, and systemic barriers that deprived them of justice and the chance for a dignified existence.
For more than three decades, Cheryl and I have traversed the labyrinthine landscape of the medical realm, encountering an array of characters: doctors, skeptics, lawyers, and critics. A striking thread that binds them is their marked reliance on memory, often at the expense of engaging their critical thinking faculties. This propensity makes them unusually susceptible to intense scrutiny of any discourse straying from the expected narrative. Furthermore, this inclination opens them to the risks of unfounded assumptions, premature pronouncements, errors, and, notably, omissions. The accuracy of their recollections, combined with the strategic omission of pivotal information, erects a formidable barrier to uncovering the veritable truth, discerning recurring patterns, and uncovering the underlying chaos that sets in motion its intricate pattern, steadily weaving its tapestry through the unfolding narrative.
The new America, now being forced on everyone, including our children, is resulting in an open and blatant disregard for life that has saturated the weakest of elite minds in mainstream America. As all Americans have witnessed during two years of lockdowns, the medical community has positioned itself as judge, jury, and executioner; researchers like Fauci are nothing less than merchants of death.
The global phenomenon of COVID-19 unveiled a striking display of a burgeoning totalitarian movement, initially masked as a temporary two-week shutdown. However, as figures like Fauci ascended to positions of authority, their audacity grew exponentially. They exercised their power with an unwavering sense of entitlement, dictating the course of events in a manner that intimidated the public with astonishing ease.
Like the elites in Lindsey and Rico's narrative, these individuals were well aware of the distinction between right and wrong. Yet, their actions seemed unfettered by ethical considerations, for they were emboldened by the knowledge that they could act with impunity, shielded by their positions of influence and control.
This parallel between the broader socio-political landscape and the intimate struggles of Lindsey and Rico forms a melancholic tableau. It accentuates an overarching environment where those wielding authority can easily manipulate circumstances, trampling upon the foundations of justice and accountability. The saga of Lindsey and Rico takes on the role of a poignant illustration, vividly portraying the manner in which unchecked power can spawn a culture of exploitation and an alarming disregard for the intrinsic rights of individuals.
In the mere moments following Rico's birth, as he is ushered into the NICU, an inexperienced agent of the Mayo Clinic entrusted with Rico's welfare exhibits an audacious entitlement. In prejudiced haste, they proceed to judge, condemn, and systematically strip away the rights of a 22-year-old mother. Her only intent was to safeguard her fragile newborn from the taint of a black-labeled drug—one that she, herself, had encountered in her own life's journey.
In this so-called "civilized" society, there exist critics and even some doctors who deem it acceptable, perhaps even advantageous, for a mother like Lindsey to have chosen the path of abortion even after the umbilical cord has been severed. The steep price Lindsey would have paid is the forfeiture of Rico's autonomy, making him nothing more than a possession of the state—held hostage by the minds that self-righteously assume the duty and bestow upon themselves the legal authority to threaten Lindsey, all while holding her son captive, a son she has barely had the chance to hold in her arms for the fleeting moments it took to capture a photograph. This serves as a stark reminder of the profound moral dilemma and human rights quandaries that confront individuals in a society that often fails to uphold the sanctity of life and the inherent rights of both mother and child. The story of Lindsey and Rico exposes the dark underbelly of a system that prioritizes control over compassion, coercion over choice, and oppression over empathy.
The toll exacted upon Lindsey's traumatized son manifests as his desperate search for his mother, only to find her absence, straining to hear the rhythm of her heartbeat, only to be met with silence. Meanwhile, he is subjected to a relentless barrage of multiple drugs, their invasive infusion coursing through his delicate veins. Most, if not the entirety, of these pharmaceutical agents, have never been scrutinized for their effects on neonates. This is compounded by the compounding of multiple doses and the intricate repercussions that arise from the simultaneous administration of all 34 doses within a single day.
The intricate web of procedures, the labyrinthine realm of medical complications, and the administration of severe antibiotics to an infant who has just emerged from the serene sanctum of nine months within the womb defy rational understanding. The perplexing array of interventions leaves one grappling with a poignant sense of incomprehensibility.
Chapter seven
What doctors really knew
The puzzle that is this narrative seems intentionally frustrating, as the truth can only be stitched together by cross-referencing medical files with insurance billing, triangulating words, and sorting through revisions and electronic signatures. Critical information missing in the clinical documents becomes so evident that you can almost see where the missing words would have gone. Eleven chest x-rays in five days make it apparent doctors had significant concerns and expectations of what would develop in Rico's throat and lungs. They were likely searching for evidence of pneumonia, which, if they had found it, they would attribute it as a sign of HIV infection. Dr. Huskins alludes to the possibility of Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) in the medical records, a condition associated with HIV. On day three, Dr. Derleth's brief clinical note stated that Rico had "presumed pneumonia," yet he did not confirm this diagnosis with a culture test to determine the exact cause or even the actual existence of the pneumonia. This raises questions about the validity of Derleth's diagnosis, especially since this was another document that took seven days to find its way into the Mayo system.
Much like the situation with the revisions made by the resident and the delay in submitting his report about the birth, there is a noteworthy parallel in the seven-day duration it takes for Derleth to file his report. When Derleth eventually submits his document, Dr. Johnson will have already documented a clinical note stating that Rico's pneumonitis or pneumonia had resolved, suggesting it may have never existed in the first place. Dr. Johnson's comprehensive evaluation effectively rendered Derleth's and Huskins' assumptions irrelevant three days before Derleth officially submitted his report. This leads us to a thought-provoking question: why did Derleth proceed with filing his assumptions, especially when it appears that his document had lost its relevance due to the subsequent clinical note. This prompts us to consider whether Derleth's document might have been strategically crafted to depict the progression of the HIV infection as more severe and whether it was designed to influence perceptions within Mower County, which has been proven to have been involved since day one.
After five days of exposure to the bactericidal agent gentamicin, the true scope of its potential toxicity surfaces, evident in the detection of elevated gentamicin levels through a blood test. This prompts an abrupt discontinuation of the drug's administration, only to be succeeded by the introduction of another antibiotic, cefotaxime, which carries its array of possible adverse effects, including the potential for liver injury. Notably, both gentamicin and cefotaxime are employed to combat bacterial infections, underscoring that this approach is unrelated to addressing viral HIV.
The intricate combination of these various substances and their interactions within the delicate physiology of a neonate remains highly complex, further compounded by the fact that most of these medications continue to be administered for a duration of 22 days. This situation epitomizes the pinnacle of induced chaos. By day five, Rico's challenges intensify, especially in fundamental functions such as sucking, swallowing, and breathing, leading medical professionals to request another ultrasound. It is also crucial to revisit the timeline, as by day five, the medical team is still four days away from consulting a neurologist to assess and diagnose Rico's issues with swallowing. The nine-day timeframe from Rico's birth is a critical point to consider, as months later, during the court proceedings, the prosecutor will present Rico's neurological damage as having been diagnosed and relevant from day one and, of course, attribute it to the HIV infection.
On day seven, Dr. Huskins called a CARE meeting that included Dr. Johnson, two social workers, and the family. Huskins's talk is brief and lacks discernable information until he makes a noteworthy proposition that had Lindsey initiated "treatment" during the early stages of her pregnancy, the probability of Rico being born HIV-positive might have diminished significantly, plummeting from 35% to less than 2%. This was shocking and devastating to Lindsey and the family. It also becomes imperative at this juncture to reexamine the amassed facts in relation to her lifelong interaction with the Mayo Clinic. This pertains to her initial visit to the OB department and extends back to her earliest appointment as an infant.
These are the recordings from that meeting.
Huskins: "If the baby had acquired HIV during birth, the viral load test would have been negative." "If Lindsey would have been on AZT all through pregnancy Rico would only have a 2% chance of being born HIV+."
At this point in the meeting, I needed to clarify what Huskins had just said, as I was sure I had misunderstood the 2% parts of his statement. So, I asked…
"Steve: What are the odds?"
Huskins: typically, this is all studied in advance and discussed with the OB doc. I was not involved in the OB part" "we need to focus on treatment now."
Cheryl's handwritten notes…
Cheryl: "(this is the meeting Steve walked out of because Huskins explained that if Lindsey would have been on AZT all through pregnancy Rico would only have a 2% chance of being born HIV+.)"
Similar to the preceding segments of the narrative, the central focus returns to the initial moments that ensued after Rico's birth and, specifically, how the resident doctor, still two years away from completing his residency, navigated the multifaceted situation at 5 a.m. The intricacies surrounding the resident's initial choice to introduce the "issue" of HIV and draw blood from the placenta and the journey that led him to that defining instant as they now emerge as a matter of life and death.
Up to this point, doctors had left Lindsey with two unspoken options to deal with HIV preceding Rico's birth. One, having not been pregnant, and two, having an abortion once she was pregnant. Given this context, the query arises: Why did Dr. Huskins present a third, yet now unattainable, option seven days after Rico's birth? Did Dr. Huskins, driven by a genuine sense of professional responsibility and a commitment to transparency, intentionally bring attention to the overlooked treatment omitted from the narrative? Or, amidst the emotional intensity of the situation, did his words slip out inadvertently, revealing an unintended disclosure? Suppose we were to consider Dr. Huskins' perspective. In that case, it becomes apparent that if he had believed that Lindsey was already cognizant of the treatment or had intentionally chosen to decline it, as later assertions will imply, then the need for such discussions after Rico's birth would have been rendered redundant. Dr. Huskins must have harbored a deliberate purpose and motive behind his choice of words and actions.
It would make the most sense that this passing mention of "the treatment" was a strategic maneuver aimed at absolving the elites of Mayo Clinic of any culpability and shifting the immense weight of the intricate medical and legal entanglements onto Lindsey's shoulders alone. She would then be portrayed as the sole determinant of destiny, as if her choices alone dictated the trajectory of events. If true, the doctors and lawyers abandoned the very principles they were meant to uphold. Instead of advocating for justice and truth, they twisted the narrative, manipulating the intricate threads of this tangled web to suit their agenda.
Just one day after Huskins' startling revelation about the missed treatment, another intern doctor named Dr. Qubty enters the scene. In an unlikely coincidence, he promptly submits a series of documents deepening the demonization of Lindsey, asserting that Lindsey had "declined treatment during pregnancy." To add to the intricacy of the situation, Qubty made this assertion based on a "referral" from resident Dufendach, who had overseen the initial suctioning and intubation and set off the first unintended act of chaos. It is also at this point that seven days have passed and Dr. Derleth signed his pneumonia document into existance
. This complex series of events that transpired following the meeting with Dr. Huskins cannot be disregarded as simple happenstance.
The recurring presence of false claims serves a clear purpose: to cast suspicion upon Lindsey and her family. Regrettably, this tactic proved successful. Five months later, during the trial, the judge himself pointedly noted, "what makes the parents suspect [is] there could have been additional care or treatment provided for the fetus which wouldn't probably place us where we're at today." "The mother of the child had a diagnosis which would indicate HIV," adding "that the mother during prenatal care did not disclose that information."
Opting to assign a resident doctor the task of hinting at HIV-related concealment and subsequently employing a first-year intern as the spokesperson to deliver the opening declaration that Lindsey declined pregnancy treatment appears to function as a safeguard for the hospital's long-standing reputation. This strategy seems designed to shield the institution from the potential repercussions, whether uncomfortable or legal, that could arise from their ability to attribute Lindsey's original patient number to a file they assert to have no prior knowledge of.
Had Cheryl and I been informed of this documentation in real-time and if we had been in a more composed state of mind, we would have realized the potential implications for Lindsey and engaged a lawyer at that juncture - a step that was advisable regardless. Furthermore, we would have vigorously pursued specific details regarding the alleged treatment, such as the date, time, and the individual responsible. Such particulars would have been instrumental in uncovering the truth behind these allegations and exposing the manipulative strategies employed by Mayo Clinic and its legal partners.
However, this information was non-existent primarily because Lindsey had never been presented with any treatment options. Dr. Qubty's document falsely claimed the contrary and circulated within Mayo Clinic, and Mower County was intentionally kept from our awareness. This left us incapable of mounting a defense for Lindsey and, more significantly, oblivious to the pressing need for her defense in the first place.
No heroic acts were bestowed upon us on the day Huskins dropped the concept of a treatment that could have avoided Rico's concerns, nor was there any genuine sense of professional duty or transparency behind the revelation that unfolded before us. Instead, I believe that the legal machinery of Mayo Clinic sought to swiftly bury this revelation from our attention while at the same time using it to further their agenda with Mower County.
For the elites, the illusive, missed treatment announcement sets their agenda in motion. At the same time, in the instant of one sentence, the hell Lindsey endured the past seven days has now been intensified to a new level of dread and defeat, shattering any rationale for the life that Lindsey had left. For me, the impact of that single statement lingers in my memory to this day, overshadowing any recollection of the ensuing conversation as my hands struck the table in an open-palmed gesture of disbelief and anguish. "Are you telling me that my daughter and that innocent child could have been spared from all this?" I exclaimed, unable to bear the weight of the revelation. At that moment, I could no longer remain in the room, and I made my exit, consumed by a mixture of sorrow, anger, and profound disbelief.
On the one hand, it would seem that in his response, Huskins failed to grasp the depth of anguish and despair that this revelation would have befallen Lindsey and her loved ones at that moment. He almost seemed dismissive of the implications of his statement, the weight it carried, and the shattering of hope that had just been reduced to a mere exchange of questions and a sterile disclaimer of his professional limitations. I am sure the world carried on that day with its daily rhythms, but as a family, we stood suspended in another world of profound realization.
My response that day found Huskins unable to escape the necessity of addressing, even in the most minimal manner, the profound impact of his words on Lindsey and the entire family. So, in a callous display of disregard for the emotional devastation he had unleashed, Huskins penned a clinical document that fell painfully short of acknowledging the profound turmoil that had engulfed Lindsey's world. In a seemingly detached manner, he merely noted, "During the course of the discussion, Rico's maternal grandfather, and to a certain extent, Mr. Martinez, expressed inquiries about Ms. Nagel's obstetric care. I made it clear to both individuals that none of the clinicians participating in the meeting were involved in Ms. Nagel's obstetric care, thus rendering us unable to provide insights on the matter."
Huskins made it clear to the family that he would not address any part the obstetrics had in this matter but did suggest to Lindsey and John they contact obstetrics directly. Lindsey and John took Huskin's advice and met with the head of obstetrics, Ellen Brodrick CNM, "requesting more information about what is written in her medical record." Lindsey and John told Brodrick that Lindsey "was never counseled that…treatment …during pregnancy…could decrease transmission to the fetus." "John states this was brought to their attention after the delivery by Dr. Huskins."
Brodrick's response to this was that she "personally counseled [Lindsey] after her admission to labor and delivery…we can offer treatment during the pregnancy and delivery which reduces transmission to the fetus from 30-40% to <2%. Lindsey shook her head "no" when Brodrick "stated this and said [she] never told her this." Brodrick disagrees with Lindsey, stating she was never told about the treatment until "after the delivery, by Dr. Huskins." however, when Brodrick states that it was "after her admission to labor and delivery" that Brodrick "personally counseled" Lindsey, it's then that the tragedy of Brodrick's incompetence and lack of her understanding of the "treatment" is accentuated.
Similar to Huskins introducing a potential treatment option seven days after Rico's birth, which held no practical value for Lindsey, Brodrick's purported offer of treatment upon Lindsey's arrival at the point of delivery would have been equally ineffective. To lower Rico's chances to the >2% probability of being born HIV-positive, Lindsey would have needed to begin the medication or treatment on or before the fourth month of her pregnancy, which is a convenient fact that Huskins himself had left out of the conversation the day of the CARE meeting. However, Huskins did explicitly state at the meeting Rico was already HIV-positive long before the day of delivery, rendering any treatment at the time of birth futile.
What adds to the complexity, bordering on the realm of incredibility, is that the meeting convened by Lindsey and John with Brodrick occurred two months after Rico's birth. Even at that juncture, with foreknowledge of the questions Lindsey would be posing, Brodrick appeared to lack a comprehensive understanding of the medical advice she was advocating for. Alternatively, it raises the question of whether Brodrick comprehended the treatment but, akin to Huskins at the CARE meeting, opted to withhold either deliberately or was directed not to acknowledge the full scope of the treatment, which would prompt another level of culpability. This anomaly exhibited by both Huskins and Brodrick raises profound concerns about the depths to which legal professionals may descend in pursuit of a favorable verdict or to protect their clients. Whatever the case, Brodrick was the head of the OB department dealing with expectant mothers, and it would be malpractice to advise an expectant mother on a life-and-death situation whether she understood it or not.
After this meeting, Brodrick presented Lindsey with a sterile 25-page summary encapsulating the entire six-month span of Lindsey's pregnancy. Interestingly, all 25 pages of this summary bore the same "service date" and "electronic signature" as the day of the meeting itself. In essence, this document represented the closest approximation to the records covering her pregnancy that Lindsey would have access to. Given the history of "revisions" and "electronically signed" signatures that have been unveiled in this narrative, one can readily grasp how the facts surrounding any given event can gradually evolve through revisions and the passage of time. This further underscores the challenge of ascertaining the actual parameters of any event. Despite these challenges, every page of this narrative serves as additional evidence supporting the undeniable fact that the treatment was never offered as prescribed.
In an entry made the day before Rico's delivery, Brodrick subtly hints at Mayo Clinic's prior HIV testing and knowledge of Lindsey's HIV status, expressing "concern re. [Lindsey's] level of viral immunity." Then, in the transcribed Results Summary from the day of Rico's birth, the nurse involved in the delivery begins with the unequivocal words "HIV positive." These words serve as the opening salvo in a comprehensive paragraph detailing the birth events. Strikingly, this paragraph closes by affirming that Rico's "HIV status at the time of delivery was unknown and assumed to be positive." In the context of what the Mayo Clinic knew at the time of Rico's birth, there is no room for ambiguity regarding the nurse's documented statement.
Responsibility is a crucial factor, and in Rico's world, defining responsibility hinges on understanding the information available to Mayo Clinic professionals and their subsequent actions. On one hand, the Mayo Clinic claims that Lindsey concealed her HIV status from them, even though they had made the initial diagnosis. On the other hand, Brodrick asserts that she offered Lindsey treatment during her pregnancy. This raises a fundamental question: why would Lindsey be offered treatment for an undisclosed disease?
Following his assumption of Rico's custody, Judge Wellman maintains that "a prima facie case has been made, the child protection petition is valid." This assertion is founded on the belief that there was no "disclosure of the mother's condition at the time of pregnancy, prenatal," and that "additional care or treatment could have been provided for the fetus, which might have prevented the current situation."
However, it's also noted that "because of [Lindsey's] history of being positive for HIV, it was recommended that she would receive treatments while pregnant." This statement explicitly indicates that treatment was recommended based on Lindsey's "history of being positive." Then, despite having based his entire theory of abduction on the premise that Lindsey concealed her HIV status and declined treatment during pregnancy, Wellman, in his "Notice of Filing Order," states that "there continues to be a disparity between the testimony and records whether Mayo did not offer treatments during the pregnancy or whether those treatments were offered and refused by Ms. Nagel."
Mower County prosecutor furthers Judge Wellman's "disparity" in his closing argument, reviewing that "At trial, Dr. W. Charles Huskins, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, testified that Lindsey Nagel's file was still on hand in the hospital's records when Ms. Nagel gave birth to her own child." The prosecutor was also very clear that "Ms. Nagel testified at the trial that she told a nurse at her June 2012 appointment (first OB appointment) that she was HIV-positive" Huskins himself made it clear he knew "that she had –that her parents had sought care at Mayo Clinic in the past, and so I immediately requested those records" Huskins knew what Lindsey's status was "based on what [he] could see from those tests, there had been a positive HIV culture at approximately 3 months of age." And regarding if Lindsey would have been HIV+ in June 2012, Huskins said, "My opinion was that that information was sufficient for me to regard that she did have HIV infection in the past and there was no other additional testing that I could see in those records that would change that opinion."
Despite the elites continuing repositioning in the justification of the abduction, Jones will simply state that "the petitioner does not have to show current abuse or neglect, but instead that the child appears to be currently at risk." It would seem that the above exchange in defense of the abduction makes it impossible to defend the position that Lindsey was somehow responsible for the fiasco for what did and did not take place after the initial OB visit.
Mayo Clinic's legal department faced a challenging dilemma regarding the available information. They couldn't deny that the medical files from 1992 contained Lindsey's history, leaving them with a problem to address. Instead of openly acknowledging the facts, it appears that both the legal department and the prosecution decided to divert attention from the core issues by casting a shadow over Lindsey's choices. This tactic, commonly used in legal battles, involves repeating the statement that Lindsey "refused treatment" numerous times despite the underlying facts.
I am aware that those who may read this narrative will likely do so only once. In contrast, I have dedicated over three years to studying the intricacies contained within these pages, having also lived through these events. Amidst the many recurring facts and scenarios, the one glaring and seemingly malevolent underlying theme in Lindsey and Rico's lives is the cruelty perpetuated by the blind and uncaring hand of "justice," which exercises its indifference upon helpless and innocent lives. While it may appear self-evident in passing that a lawyer's primary duty is to win in defense of their client, I consistently return to the moral truths of this story. It should be deeply troubling that a group, primarily comprised of older men, appears to lack compassion when treating a young mother and her newborn as nothing more than a case file. The contrived and calculated statement that Lindsey had refused treatment during pregnancy was not only demeaning and accusatory, but it was also very destructive to Lindsey's life to the point of having been a major factor leading to her death.
As this elusive "treatment" weaves its presence throughout the narrative, I realized that I had never pinpointed the first individual who claimed that Lindsey had "refused treatment." The recurring theme of treatment refusal was so deeply ingrained in the numerous documents that I assumed it must have been present in the initial records from when Rico was born. However, after a meticulous review of every clinical document, starting from the day of Rico's birth, I uncovered that it was on Rico's eighth day of life that a Mayo Clinic staff member made the initial statement insinuating that 1. Lindsey had "refused treatment," and 2. That she had done so "during pregnancy."
There is a significant difference between refusing treatment in general and refusing treatment specifically during pregnancy. Dr. Qubty initially did the introduction of both aspects into the narrative. The timing of this mention of refusal, occurring on the eighth day of Rico's life, doesn't seem accidental. Additionally, it doesn't appear coincidental that Qubty was a resident at the time, nor that Rico was referred to Qubty by the resident doctor, Dufendach, who had performed the suctioning and intubation. Qubty made his statement just 24 hours after Dr. Huskins and other Mayo Clinic staff briefly touched upon the elusive concept of "treatment during pregnancy" during a meeting that I had walked out of when Huskins introduced this topic to Lindsey.
Dr. Mary Burgess, who at the time would have just completed her residency, wrote a summary regarding the idea that Mayo Clinic was unaware of Lindsey's diagnosis, stating that "at some point during the course of her care, she (Lindsey) did disclose that she had a h/o (history of) being HIV positive as a child." Upon reflection, it is clear that the power dynamics at play extend far beyond the actions of a single individual or department. It's also clear that this is not how America perceives the actions of a medical institution such as the Mayo Clinic working in the best interests of a newborn and his family. Clearly, Lindsey was targeted, her character questioned, and her choices distorted.
These statements further exacerbated the precarious situation, contributing to the mounting blame and scrutiny placed upon Lindsey. Every turn in this arduous journey only deepened the suspicion and undermined the trust that should have been placed in her as a patient seeking medical care. The intentional use of these documents, coupled with the judge's remarks, served to reinforce the narrative that Lindsey was somehow responsible for the tragic circumstances that had befallen her and her child. The weight of these allegations and the emotional turmoil of the trial would only further erode the family's faith in a system that should have been dedicated to seeking justice and truth.
Upon reflection, it becomes painfully evident that there was a deliberate manipulation of information, withholding of crucial details, and selective disclosure of medical records. All of these actions were orchestrated with the intention of crafting a narrative that cast Lindsey as a suspect rather than acknowledging her as a victim of a flawed healthcare system. This strategy was designed to divert attention from the actual cause of Rico's deteriorating condition. It is apparent that those in positions of power were well-versed in these tactics. This serves as a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play within the realms of medicine and law. It underscores the pressing need for transparency, integrity, and accountability to prevent such grave injustices from recurring, which is the intent of this narrative.
Wow, it seems as if they lured Lindsey in to delivering Rico at Mayo Clinic, with the initial false promise of not making a big deal of her HIV status. Then, once he was born they pounced on him as a subject in their pre-meditated experiment with toxic drugs on newborns, all without any shred of informed consent by his parents. The deception, betrayal and abuse of beautiful and innocent souls are breathtaking....