Dietlose

The June issue of Clinical Neuropsychologist contains an article by Manfred F. Greiffenstein, a psychologist from Royal Oak, Michigan. 
 
In his article, Dr. Greiffenstein comments on six myths that he regularly encounters in his defense  forensic practice.  I earlier discussed my agreement with him where he attacks the idea that only the Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery is legally admissible under Daubert.
 
However, I take exception with him when he implies that there is no permanency resulting from mild traumatic brain injury.
 
In this section of his paper, Dr. Greiffenstein quotes from Dr. Iverson’s 2005 paper stating that the commonly accepted figure for permanent disability following mild TBI is 15% is incorrect. 
 
While Dr. Greiffenstein accurately quotes from Dr. Iverson’s paper, he fails to acknowledge that even Iverson accepts that there is a percentage of mild TBI patients who do not go on to a full and uneventful recovery but rather, develop  long-term chronic and permanent residuals from mild TBI.
 
Dr. Greiffenstein is a co-author with Dr. Paul Lees-Haley of a study dealing with the neuropsychological effects following exposure to manganese.  You will recall that the Center for Public Integrity and Mother Jones recently published an expose with regard to the amount of money paid by the welding industry to Paul Lees-Haley.  Dr. Greiffenstein also acknowledges that his practice includes “defense selected evaluations in personal injury matters.”  He also thanks Drs. Larrabee and Binder for their preliminary reviews and helpful criticisms.  A review of deposition testimony given by Larrabee and Binder reflect that they, like Dr. Greiffenstein, primarily performed defense forensic evaluations.
 
Those who represent people who have sustained traumatic brain injury need to investigate the biases of the authors and journals and editors of journals before being so quickly to accept the authenticity of any cited literature.

Over the years, people have come up with some very interesting cake recipes. For instance, there is chocolate and zucchini cake, Coca Cola cake, and Kaluha cake, all delicious but not necessarily healthy. As you will discover in this article, you have another option in the form of a recipe for green tea cake. With this, you have both flavor and a healthy snack.

Although we have provided you with our favorite recipe for green tea cake, keep in mind that you will find many variations. In addition, you might take the recipe we have and modify it using your own creativity. Regardless, a green tea cake makes a wonderful dessert when entertaining guests or snack for the kids after school. Green tea cakes are light, moist, and offer just the right amount of sweet.

You will even find that with this recipe for green cake tea fills the room with a wonderful, green tea fragrance. This type of cake can be made as a sheet cake, layer cake, or for different types of molds. As far as icing, you could choose whatever you like but we do suggest you consider a cream cheese based icing, which adds just the right touch of flavor to complement the cake’s ingredients. If you want to give this recipe for green tea cake a slight green color, you can add an additional amount of Matcha, which is green tea powder.

RECIPE FOR GREEN TEA CAKE
1 cup all-purpose flour
1 cup cake flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
4 to 5 teaspoons powdered green tea
1 ¼ cups sugar
1 cup vegetable oil
1 cup plain or vanilla yogurt
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
3 eggs

RECIPE FOR ICING
1 ¼ cups powdered sugar
2 ½ teaspoons powdered green tea
2 tablespoons butter or margerine, soft
3 ounces cream cheese, soft
½ teaspoon vanilla extract
1 ½ teaspoons milk

Start by preheating the oven to 350 degrees. Grease and flour a 9×13-inch or two, 9-inch cake pans. In a bowl, sift the all-purpose flour with cake flour, baking soda, salt, and green tea powder, mix well and set aside. In another bowl, beat the white sugar, oil, and eggs until smooth. Stir in vanilla extract. Gradually beat in the flour mixture, alternating with the yogurt. Mix well and pour the batter into the prepared baking pans. Bake the cake for 30 to 40 minutes or until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean. Cool on a cake rack for 30 minutes before icing.

For the icing, sift the powdered sugar with the green tea powder in a bowl. In a second bowl, mix the sugar/tea mixture with butter, cream cheese, vanilla, and milk. Beat until smooth with an electric mixer. Spread the icing on the cooled cakes, distributing evenly. To enhance the appearance for this recipe of green tea cake, you could sprinkle a small amount of the green tea powder on top.

Julie Health writes about health benefits of green tea and has provided you with more recipes using green tea.

You may reprint the article above in its entirety provided the resource box and its links remain.

Readers of my blog will remember that last fall I was honored to speak at the annual conference of the National Association of Neuropsychology (NAN).  During my presentation, I accurately indicated that Dr. Joe Reed had misinterpreted a court’s ruling in the case of Chapelle v. Ganger which dealt with Daubert challenges (admissibility) to various expert testimony.
 
Dr. Reed in a 1996 article wrote that in the Chapelle case, the trial judge ruled the fixed neuropsychological test battery met the Daubert standard while the flexible battery did not.This statement, as I correctly pointed out, was an error.
 
Therefore, I was interested to read a recent article published in the Clinical Neuropsychologist by Manfred F. Greiffenstein, Ph.D. entitled “Clinical Myths of Forensic Neuropsychology”. 
 
In his article, Dr. Greiffenstein discusses what he calls various myths surrounding forensic neuropsychology. While I disagree with the majority of this article, Dr. Greiffenstein correctly observed that one of those myths is that “only the fixed battery is admissible under Daubert.”  Dr. Greiffenstein attributes this myth to the article cited above by Reed.  Dr. Greiffenstein writes:
 
 “The assertion of the Halstead-Reitan battery’s superior admissibility is a myth for two reasons.  It is easily disproved by showing that Reed materially mischaracterized the Chapelle ruling....Second, fifteen years of Daubert jurisprudence have not been accompanied by any increase in Halstead-Reitan use or decline in flexible approaches.”
 
Thus, there is further evidence that Dr. Reed’s reading of the Chapelle decision is an error.  Whether this was simply an innocent misreading, a lack of understanding or a material “mischaracterization” as Dr. Greiffenstein charges is left to the reader.
 
What is clear is the assertion that Chapelle upheld the use of the fixed test battery and found that the flexible battery did not satisfy the Daubert standard simply is incorrect.

The Sixth Annual North American Brain Injury Society Conference on Brain Injury will be held October 2-4, 2008 in New Orleans, Louisiana. This conference is the largest gathering of brain injury professionals in North America with over 50 of the leading experts from North America scheduled to present on the latest advances in the science, rehabilitation and treatment of traumatic brain injury.

The 2008 conference will focus on the following topics:

• Medical-Clinical Best Practices
• Research/Science
• Life Long Living & Working
• Legal Issues in Brain Injury

NABIS will also offer a series of educational sessions that will specifically address the unique challenges presented by wartime brain injury caused by blast. Brain injury professionals working in the military or VA settings are strongly encouraged to attend these sessions. For more information on the upcoming conference, or for information on how to register, please click here.

After reading about the outrageous amount of money the welding industry paid to Paul Lees-Haley, Ph.D., as reported by Mother Jones (July/August 2008) and The Center for Public Integrity, I decided to do a Google search of Dr. Lees-Haley.  In doing that search, I came upon a 2000 article written by Dr. Lees-Haley and John C. Courtney, Psy.D. entitled “Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence?  A Need For Reform”.  In that article, Drs. Lees-Haley and Courtney write:
 
 Many psychologists produce their data promptly when asked to do so by litigating attorneys.  Others refuse, claiming that it is unethical to disclose tests or test data to insurers, attorneys or jurors.  It is irresponsible for the Courts to permit psychologists retained by parties in litigation to determine what is relevant for juries to review.  Doing so allows psychologists to displace the Court.  “Without seeing the test and test data, an attorney cannot possibly fully understand the methodology or the reasoning process used to draw conclusions from test data, and cannot possibly fully cross-examine the expert on the reliability and validity of the allegedly scientific methodology.  Giving psychologists this power is not in the best interest of consumers and is against social policy.”
 
The article continues to dissect the various excuses given by psychologists and neuropsychologists who refuse to turn over their test data and provides  persuasive arguments why these excuses are not valid.
 
Reading this article made me remember a more recent article written by Dr. Lees-Haley which took  the exact opposite position.  I went to my book shelf and pulled out an early issue of the Brain Injury Professional, the official journal of the North America Brain Injury Society. I found this statement with regard to the dissemination of test data to attorneys in litigation.  There Dr. Lees-Haley wrote:
 
 Most of us feel that attorneys should not have unrestricted access to tests and their answers.
 
I wonder what caused Dr. Paul Lees-Haley to take this position, a position he previously called irresponsible? Are these real controversies, or made up controversies? You will have to be the judge.