1. Are my fellow Board members so wealthy (all are considerably above Alameda’s median family income and net worth) that a wasted $298/year means nothing?
2. Is there a bridge between “closing the hospital” and “keeping it open” that can be built with more effective communication?
3. Are my fellow Board members ruthless enough to try to destroy me (after all they sat idly by and seemed to tacitly endorse Leah Williams libelous attempts to have me expelled from UCSF have my current license revoked, and have all future license applications denied)?
4. What major issues have my fellow Board members been right about? Seriously, am I crazy or weren’t they wrong about Kaiser, budgets, and seismic retrofit?
5. Doesn’t weak evidence (and I am not suggesting the evidence I have presented is weak, but just assuming for the sake of this discussion) trump no evidence? Assuming that direct evidence trumps indirect evidence, why is the Board against doing a study on stroke outcomes that would yield direct evidence?
6. Where do people get the idea that 74% of the District voters support the Hospital? That was not even the percentage 10 years ago before the tens of millions in losses, the inability to complete the seismic retrofit, and the renunciation of the promise to not encumber district voters with debt that would live past the closing of the Hospital. Why, all of a sudden is this inflated number being bandied about?