From the first article:
From the second article:
And herein lies the problem. People are too impatient these days. People gloss over the caveats and take the headline or bits and pieces gospel. Both articles allude to the information available at that given point in time. Assuming the newest revelations from Chmura are correct, there wasn't vertebrae damage, it was a herniated disk.
We know from initial reports that swelling in the area was significant. I've heard that MRIs are not effective with significant swelling. If this is the case, is it not unreasonable to conclude initial MRIs did not uncover the herniated disk and now that swelling has gone done the diagnosis has changed?
And as for the teammates, I don't think it's surprising that they would believe he was coming back when the initial information was favorable. Finley is their friend, their coworker, to some of them a brother. Any glimmer of hope that he would come back and be okay they were going to latch on to.
Information changes. We still don't know the full story, but to jump to conclusions that we've been lied to or mislead are absurd, especially when they were very open about seeking out second, third and fourth opinions. We knew they were still gathering information. But again, people generally are just way too impatient.
And this isn't necessarily directed at you, Stoic, at least not entirely as your last paragraph, I feel, is the conservative approach people should take with information. There's a lot of people out there, either readers who cherry pick or writers who run with something as gospel or both; that really need to hit the brakes, stop and think about what information is available and what conclusions they can make.
Originally Posted by: mi_keys