(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 05:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, I never made a comment about the knee on the neck thing - you are the person that brought that up. So I didn’t miss that, as I really didn’t have the foggiest idea of how the prosecution argued that. For what it is worth,
I see the point you’re trying to make in that instance that it was always a multi-point pressure.

But this all started when you tried to chastise me for claiming that there Floyd was suffocated.

You didn’t address the asphyxia comment - do you still stand by your statements that the prosecution avoided it? And that I wasn’t looking late enough in the trial to evaluate if they started to avoid it?

I will type slow --- the state first said 'COD = suffocation, asphyxia' mode = knee on neck.

The asphyxia started to take hits when the tae kwon do dude started opining on chokepoints --- and none of the issues with fast choke points or slow choke points seemed to be borne out in the facts of the case, nor in the medical findings.

The 'knee on neck' then got hit by facts above and beyond that above, enough to whenever the issue of the knee came up they had to revert to a second formulation -- knee and weight on the neck and back area.

Then they turned, after the debacle with the EMT taking the pulse when it would have been impossible to do so with the knee on neck to 'well it was his heart that gave out'.

Finally, at the last turn, they started with combination breathing failure/ heart failure brought on by compression force (i.e. Chauvins weight alone) on Floyd.

They didnt avoid it -- they just turned to about three other causes in short order.

I mean, something in that smorgasborg must be it.

But one of the big switches *in trial* was having to change their story from 'knee on the neck' to having to join it continuously with the 'back area'.

Clear now? So which item in the smorgasborg are you feasting on?

All that and you still don’t recognize that your comments that started all this, by saying it was incorrect to use the word suffocate and that the prosecution shied away from using the word asphyxiation were blatantly false.

The prosecution didn’t shy away and it wasn’t incorrect to use the word suffocate, you know, given that the prosecution and multiple witnesses said he died of asphyxiation….

Go ahead and rabble on on that soap box of yours. I could care less about how the arguments changed - I didn’t argue counter to that in the slightest.

You still havent told us which of the 4 or 5 different ways that the prosecution told us that Chauvin killed Floyd you subscribe to, mind you.

And they absolutely shied away from it as 'the definitive cause of death'. Maybe they tossed out the other 3 or four methods and modes to be cute or something..... I guess if having one definitive cause of death is good, well, I guess three more is triple good in your book. Sounds fun.

The problem is, you didnt bother with the trial as a whole, now you are coming in here like some god savant telling us what they did. Sounds like an interesting take. So what *does* 3 or 4 *other* COD modes sound like to you? Embracing #1?

But back to the first line in the post --- I guess you will avoid that steadfastly, kind of like the question I ask of 'how do *you* define 'white' and 'black' for the purposes of discrimination?'

So yes, you say 'suffocate'. The problem is that even for much of the time in trial the prosecution didnt agree with you on a full time basis. is this your 'omniscient godlike knowledge' thingy rearing its head once again? Funny, if so, you might answer some of the questions noted above.

But the standard you set out above is seemingly 'if a witness says it' it must be true.

Given that standard, I assume you are all on board with the defense witness who said that Floyd was helped to his death by being too close to a tailpipe and carbon monoxide was the culprit.

I mean, that is the gold standard you state above --- a witness says it so therefore a professional opinion *must* be true.

Interesting standard to toss out there.

I am grateful for your deep incisive feel on what the prosecution did or did not do, since you are apparently a savant on this. Amazing. maybe you should talk to Keith Ellison on a savant position with the Minnesota AG office. Sound good with you?

I'm old enough to remember when "Seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" was considered poor form by some. Oh well. The times change I guess.

(06-28-2021 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will type slow --- the state first said 'COD = suffocation, asphyxia' mode = knee on neck.

The asphyxia started to take hits when the tae kwon do dude started opining on chokepoints --- and none of the issues with fast choke points or slow choke points seemed to be borne out in the facts of the case, nor in the medical findings.

The 'knee on neck' then got hit by facts above and beyond that above, enough to whenever the issue of the knee came up they had to revert to a second formulation -- knee and weight on the neck and back area.

Then they turned, after the debacle with the EMT taking the pulse when it would have been impossible to do so with the knee on neck to 'well it was his heart that gave out'.

Finally, at the last turn, they started with combination breathing failure/ heart failure brought on by compression force (i.e. Chauvins weight alone) on Floyd.

They didnt avoid it -- they just turned to about three other causes in short order.

I mean, something in that smorgasborg must be it.

But one of the big switches *in trial* was having to change their story from 'knee on the neck' to having to join it continuously with the 'back area'.

Clear now? So which item in the smorgasborg are you feasting on?

All that and you still don’t recognize that your comments that started all this, by saying it was incorrect to use the word suffocate and that the prosecution shied away from using the word asphyxiation were blatantly false.

The prosecution didn’t shy away and it wasn’t incorrect to use the word suffocate, you know, given that the prosecution and multiple witnesses said he died of asphyxiation….

Go ahead and rabble on on that soap box of yours. I could care less about how the arguments changed - I didn’t argue counter to that in the slightest.

You still havent told us which of the 4 or 5 different ways that the prosecution told us that Chauvin killed Floyd you subscribe to, mind you.

And they absolutely shied away from it as 'the definitive cause of death'. Maybe they tossed out the other 3 or four methods and modes to be cute or something..... I guess if having one definitive cause of death is good, well, I guess three more is triple good in your book. Sounds fun.

The problem is, you didnt bother with the trial as a whole, now you are coming in here like some god savant telling us what they did. Sounds like an interesting take. So what *does* 3 or 4 *other* COD modes sound like to you? Embracing #1?

But back to the first line in the post --- I guess you will avoid that steadfastly, kind of like the question I ask of 'how do *you* define 'white' and 'black' for the purposes of discrimination?'

So yes, you say 'suffocate'. The problem is that even for much of the time in trial the prosecution didnt agree with you on a full time basis. is this your 'omniscient godlike knowledge' thingy rearing its head once again? Funny, if so, you might answer some of the questions noted above.

But the standard you set out above is seemingly 'if a witness says it' it must be true.

Given that standard, I assume you are all on board with the defense witness who said that Floyd was helped to his death by being too close to a tailpipe and carbon monoxide was the culprit.

I mean, that is the gold standard you state above --- a witness says it so therefore a professional opinion *must* be true.

Interesting standard to toss out there.

I am grateful for your deep incisive feel on what the prosecution did or did not do, since you are apparently a savant on this. Amazing. maybe you should talk to Keith Ellison on a savant position with the Minnesota AG office. Sound good with you?

I'm old enough to remember when "Seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" was considered poor form by some. Oh well. The times change I guess.

When lad decides to play expert lawyer when his background is more like watching Perry Mason, and keeps going at it, a response like that is somewhat inevitable.

Yes, the HORRORS of calling him on that. The sheer unadulterated horror. You are so brave.

By the way, have you read up between 'fact issues at trial' and conjecture yet? Might be a good time.

(06-28-2021 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 06:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think you were misinterpreting my comments. I didn't think that his heart was "healthy" but I'm not sure it was an extremely delicate situation either.

Well golly gee willikers, you werent even sure he had problems that were aside from the ordinary when this started.

Quote:I don't think the autopsy report suggested signs of chronic heart failure?

It was in there when you look for it. The report on the heart listed the issues, albeit in dry, clinical terms. Maybe not 'heart failure' but he did have very severe heart disease, very clogged cardiac veins, various signs of atrophy, and a very enlarged heart due to the overexertion that it had to do to keep up.

Quote:

Quote:Or had Floyd not ingested a crap ton of fentanyl just prior to his arrest, I dont think I would noting what I do.

But you? You try to downplay anything that cuts against your preconceived narrative I think. Interesting that.

Do you not think that you do the same thing?

Please do tell what I am doing so, oh sage master of all.

Quote:As to the Fentanyl... what would you say if he had been abusing Fentanyl for years and the 11 mcg/mL (or whatever it was) was pretty much a steady-state for him? Does that change your approach to this discussion?

What if space aliens gave it to him? I mean, given all the 'what ifs' you are coming up with why not that one.....

Quote:Do you think it's different if he had been a) using the same amount of Fentanyl for months or years or b) if he took an especially large dose (for him) on the day of his demise? Do you have any idea if a) or b) is accurate?

Oh goody, another what if. Amazing that.

Again, my friend (the PhD pharmacology researcher specializing in opioid issues) said that the vast majority of the people who have that dosage in their system, that would be a fatal dose. That amount *has* to affect the involuntary action of breathing at some level. He also did say, that Floyd *could* be an outlier in that respect, and that he has encountered, in an extraordinarily infrequent sense, doses of that level that are not fatal.

So yes, your string of 'what ifs' is potentially valid. Highly unlikely, but fair.

Me, I guess that if Floyd was the fentanyl warhorse that you posit above with your string of 'what ifs', Chauvin had the most fing terrible string of bad luck that any person might imagine.

But you seemingly cant wrap your arms around the fact that a whole boatload of Fentanyl was coarsing around in St George's system and that the out on the right hand side of the curve level of an LD50 dose had zero effect on the St George and his ability to breathe. Its a free country, you can believe whatever you want.

Wrong. I haven't been advocating for that. You seem to not be able to wrap your arms around the concept that a snapshot level of Fentanyl is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

It actually is. Think of it this way --- I am saying that one who blows a .75 on an Intoxilyzer likely has a fatal dose of alcohol. Of course, people have been known to blow a .75 and live. But it is widely held that a .4 is fatal dose.

You, on the other hand, are saying, well, he blew a .75, but that snapshot level of BAC is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

Quote:No offense, but that is bs. The context is the sparingly small number of people that blow a .75 and live to tell about.

Quote:Seven experts in toxicology, cardiology and illegal drug use consulted by The Washington Post largely disagreed with that idea, most of them strenuously. All but one said the autopsy findings and other court documents, coupled with the well-known chain of events that evening, made death by a fentanyl overdose unlikely to impossible. (One expert, Craig Beavers, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s cardiovascular team section, said he did not have enough information about all the circumstances to form a final conclusion.)

...

“I’m skeptical of the notion of opioid overdose as the cause here,” said David Juurlink, head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. “The sequence of events isn’t characteristic of opioid overdose.”

Fentanyl kills by shutting down the part of the brain that controls respiration. Breathing slows, then stops, followed by the heart.

If Floyd had ingested an opioid and fell asleep on his way toward an overdose death, several experts told The Post, he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, have spent the next 20 minutes coherently interacting with police, repeatedly describing his claustrophobia and anxiety, battling with them as they tried to put him in a squad car and struggling against the three officers who pinned him facedown on the street. Instead, he would have become even more sluggish on the path toward unconsciousness and death, these experts said.

“It’s just complete garbage to call it an overdose,” said Kimberly Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, a national advocacy group, and a Yale School of Medicine instructor. In an opioid overdose, “a person is basically blue, unresponsive. … It happens usually from the moment people use to 10 minutes.”

...

The experts agreed that the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd’s blood was very high, at 11 nanograms per milliliter. Lewis Nelson, chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology for Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said that amount indicates enough to cause a fatal overdose in someone taking the drug for the first time. The analysis was conducted by NMS Labs, a Pennsylvania company.

But Floyd was a longtime fentanyl user — Chauvin’s defense called him an “addict” — who probably had built a tolerance to the drug and could consume larger-than-average amounts without overdosing, experts said. Longtime opioid users often need to take increasing amounts of the drug to achieve the same level of euphoria.

The ratio of fentanyl to one of its by-products, norfentanyl, in Floyd’s blood is consistent with chronic use rather than an acute overdose, Babu said.

The amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood also provides only one piece to an overall puzzle, they said. Toxicology is not nearly as precise as it appears on television crime shows. After death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically, as substances move from organs and viscera into the bloodstream, a point the prosecution raises in its legal papers. The amount found in overdose victims varies widely.

...

Nelson, the toxicologist, said “it is not inconceivable” that fentanyl caused some respiratory depression in Floyd, but the drug’s impact cannot be considered separately from the officers’ behavior. Had Floyd been alone, he “probably wouldn’t have died,” Nelson said.

“If you’re not breathing well because you have respiratory depression, adding compression to the chest and neck is certainly going to contribute,” he said.

“Context matters,” Babu said.

Quote:A memorandum filed by the Hennepin County Attorney’s office on June 1 indicated that chief medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who listed Floyd’s death as a homicide, thought the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

According to another memo on June 1, Dr. Baker told investigators that while Floyd had a high amount of fentanyl in his system, he was “not saying this killed him.”

Former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide, explained that the amount of fentanyl that was in Floyd's system can have vastly different effects on different people.

“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

(06-28-2021 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I will type slow --- the state first said 'COD = suffocation, asphyxia' mode = knee on neck.

The asphyxia started to take hits when the tae kwon do dude started opining on chokepoints --- and none of the issues with fast choke points or slow choke points seemed to be borne out in the facts of the case, nor in the medical findings.

The 'knee on neck' then got hit by facts above and beyond that above, enough to whenever the issue of the knee came up they had to revert to a second formulation -- knee and weight on the neck and back area.

Then they turned, after the debacle with the EMT taking the pulse when it would have been impossible to do so with the knee on neck to 'well it was his heart that gave out'.

Finally, at the last turn, they started with combination breathing failure/ heart failure brought on by compression force (i.e. Chauvins weight alone) on Floyd.

They didnt avoid it -- they just turned to about three other causes in short order.

I mean, something in that smorgasborg must be it.

But one of the big switches *in trial* was having to change their story from 'knee on the neck' to having to join it continuously with the 'back area'.

Clear now? So which item in the smorgasborg are you feasting on?

All that and you still don’t recognize that your comments that started all this, by saying it was incorrect to use the word suffocate and that the prosecution shied away from using the word asphyxiation were blatantly false.

The prosecution didn’t shy away and it wasn’t incorrect to use the word suffocate, you know, given that the prosecution and multiple witnesses said he died of asphyxiation….

Go ahead and rabble on on that soap box of yours. I could care less about how the arguments changed - I didn’t argue counter to that in the slightest.

You still havent told us which of the 4 or 5 different ways that the prosecution told us that Chauvin killed Floyd you subscribe to, mind you.

And they absolutely shied away from it as 'the definitive cause of death'. Maybe they tossed out the other 3 or four methods and modes to be cute or something..... I guess if having one definitive cause of death is good, well, I guess three more is triple good in your book. Sounds fun.

The problem is, you didnt bother with the trial as a whole, now you are coming in here like some god savant telling us what they did. Sounds like an interesting take. So what *does* 3 or 4 *other* COD modes sound like to you? Embracing #1?

But back to the first line in the post --- I guess you will avoid that steadfastly, kind of like the question I ask of 'how do *you* define 'white' and 'black' for the purposes of discrimination?'

So yes, you say 'suffocate'. The problem is that even for much of the time in trial the prosecution didnt agree with you on a full time basis. is this your 'omniscient godlike knowledge' thingy rearing its head once again? Funny, if so, you might answer some of the questions noted above.

But the standard you set out above is seemingly 'if a witness says it' it must be true.

Given that standard, I assume you are all on board with the defense witness who said that Floyd was helped to his death by being too close to a tailpipe and carbon monoxide was the culprit.

I mean, that is the gold standard you state above --- a witness says it so therefore a professional opinion *must* be true.

Interesting standard to toss out there.

I am grateful for your deep incisive feel on what the prosecution did or did not do, since you are apparently a savant on this. Amazing. maybe you should talk to Keith Ellison on a savant position with the Minnesota AG office. Sound good with you?

I'm old enough to remember when "Seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" was considered poor form by some. Oh well. The times change I guess.

When lad decides to play expert lawyer when his background is more like watching Perry Mason, and keeps going at it, a response like that is somewhat inevitable.

Yes, the HORRORS of calling him on that. The sheer unadulterated horror. You are so brave.

(06-28-2021 09:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  All that and you still don’t recognize that your comments that started all this, by saying it was incorrect to use the word suffocate and that the prosecution shied away from using the word asphyxiation were blatantly false.

The prosecution didn’t shy away and it wasn’t incorrect to use the word suffocate, you know, given that the prosecution and multiple witnesses said he died of asphyxiation….

Go ahead and rabble on on that soap box of yours. I could care less about how the arguments changed - I didn’t argue counter to that in the slightest.

You still havent told us which of the 4 or 5 different ways that the prosecution told us that Chauvin killed Floyd you subscribe to, mind you.

And they absolutely shied away from it as 'the definitive cause of death'. Maybe they tossed out the other 3 or four methods and modes to be cute or something..... I guess if having one definitive cause of death is good, well, I guess three more is triple good in your book. Sounds fun.

The problem is, you didnt bother with the trial as a whole, now you are coming in here like some god savant telling us what they did. Sounds like an interesting take. So what *does* 3 or 4 *other* COD modes sound like to you? Embracing #1?

But back to the first line in the post --- I guess you will avoid that steadfastly, kind of like the question I ask of 'how do *you* define 'white' and 'black' for the purposes of discrimination?'

So yes, you say 'suffocate'. The problem is that even for much of the time in trial the prosecution didnt agree with you on a full time basis. is this your 'omniscient godlike knowledge' thingy rearing its head once again? Funny, if so, you might answer some of the questions noted above.

But the standard you set out above is seemingly 'if a witness says it' it must be true.

Given that standard, I assume you are all on board with the defense witness who said that Floyd was helped to his death by being too close to a tailpipe and carbon monoxide was the culprit.

I mean, that is the gold standard you state above --- a witness says it so therefore a professional opinion *must* be true.

Interesting standard to toss out there.

I am grateful for your deep incisive feel on what the prosecution did or did not do, since you are apparently a savant on this. Amazing. maybe you should talk to Keith Ellison on a savant position with the Minnesota AG office. Sound good with you?

I'm old enough to remember when "Seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" was considered poor form by some. Oh well. The times change I guess.

When lad decides to play expert lawyer when his background is more like watching Perry Mason, and keeps going at it, a response like that is somewhat inevitable.

Yes, the HORRORS of calling him on that. The sheer unadulterated horror. You are so brave.

By the way, have you read up between 'fact issues at trial' and conjecture yet? Might be a good time.

You think I’m making legal arguments here and arguing about the court case?

You prodded me by saying I was wrong to use the word suffocate and then you doubled down on the idea that the prosecution wanted to avoid the related word asphyxiation.

Quote:I simply looked up articles and kept proving both of your points wrong.

Quote:There seems to be plenty of evidence that you were factually wrong on both accounts. Instead of saying mea culpa, you’ve tried to dance around or lash out as a way to distract from the very simple fact that your initial points were factually wrong.

Quote:I mean, how do you even think I’m playing lawyer? What legal opinion have I offered specifically? Lol

(06-28-2021 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 06:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think you were misinterpreting my comments. I didn't think that his heart was "healthy" but I'm not sure it was an extremely delicate situation either.

Well golly gee willikers, you werent even sure he had problems that were aside from the ordinary when this started.

Quote:I don't think the autopsy report suggested signs of chronic heart failure?

It was in there when you look for it. The report on the heart listed the issues, albeit in dry, clinical terms. Maybe not 'heart failure' but he did have very severe heart disease, very clogged cardiac veins, various signs of atrophy, and a very enlarged heart due to the overexertion that it had to do to keep up.

Quote:Do you not think that you do the same thing?

Please do tell what I am doing so, oh sage master of all.

Quote:As to the Fentanyl... what would you say if he had been abusing Fentanyl for years and the 11 mcg/mL (or whatever it was) was pretty much a steady-state for him? Does that change your approach to this discussion?

What if space aliens gave it to him? I mean, given all the 'what ifs' you are coming up with why not that one.....

Quote:Do you think it's different if he had been a) using the same amount of Fentanyl for months or years or b) if he took an especially large dose (for him) on the day of his demise? Do you have any idea if a) or b) is accurate?

Oh goody, another what if. Amazing that.

Again, my friend (the PhD pharmacology researcher specializing in opioid issues) said that the vast majority of the people who have that dosage in their system, that would be a fatal dose. That amount *has* to affect the involuntary action of breathing at some level. He also did say, that Floyd *could* be an outlier in that respect, and that he has encountered, in an extraordinarily infrequent sense, doses of that level that are not fatal.

So yes, your string of 'what ifs' is potentially valid. Highly unlikely, but fair.

Me, I guess that if Floyd was the fentanyl warhorse that you posit above with your string of 'what ifs', Chauvin had the most fing terrible string of bad luck that any person might imagine.

But you seemingly cant wrap your arms around the fact that a whole boatload of Fentanyl was coarsing around in St George's system and that the out on the right hand side of the curve level of an LD50 dose had zero effect on the St George and his ability to breathe. Its a free country, you can believe whatever you want.

Wrong. I haven't been advocating for that. You seem to not be able to wrap your arms around the concept that a snapshot level of Fentanyl is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

It actually is. Think of it this way --- I am saying that one who blows a .75 on an Intoxilyzer likely has a fatal dose of alcohol. Of course, people have been known to blow a .75 and live. But it is widely held that a .4 is fatal dose.

You, on the other hand, are saying, well, he blew a .75, but that snapshot level of BAC is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

Quote:No offense, but that is bs. The context is the sparingly small number of people that blow a .75 and live to tell about.

And some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE. What do you think the Fentanyl level is on patients with chronic pain who use Fentanyl patches daily? I would imagine that it would be enough to kill me, TBH.

I'm sorry that you don't think that context is important here but it is.

Article from WaPo in March, 2021 looked at this. Perhaps this left-wing rag just happened to find 7 commie medical experts... who knows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html

Some highlights:

Quote:Seven experts in toxicology, cardiology and illegal drug use consulted by The Washington Post largely disagreed with that idea, most of them strenuously. All but one said the autopsy findings and other court documents, coupled with the well-known chain of events that evening, made death by a fentanyl overdose unlikely to impossible. (One expert, Craig Beavers, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s cardiovascular team section, said he did not have enough information about all the circumstances to form a final conclusion.)

...

“I’m skeptical of the notion of opioid overdose as the cause here,” said David Juurlink, head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. “The sequence of events isn’t characteristic of opioid overdose.”

Fentanyl kills by shutting down the part of the brain that controls respiration. Breathing slows, then stops, followed by the heart.

If Floyd had ingested an opioid and fell asleep on his way toward an overdose death, several experts told The Post, he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, have spent the next 20 minutes coherently interacting with police, repeatedly describing his claustrophobia and anxiety, battling with them as they tried to put him in a squad car and struggling against the three officers who pinned him facedown on the street. Instead, he would have become even more sluggish on the path toward unconsciousness and death, these experts said.

“It’s just complete garbage to call it an overdose,” said Kimberly Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, a national advocacy group, and a Yale School of Medicine instructor. In an opioid overdose, “a person is basically blue, unresponsive. … It happens usually from the moment people use to 10 minutes.”

...

The experts agreed that the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd’s blood was very high, at 11 nanograms per milliliter. Lewis Nelson, chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology for Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said that amount indicates enough to cause a fatal overdose in someone taking the drug for the first time. The analysis was conducted by NMS Labs, a Pennsylvania company.

But Floyd was a longtime fentanyl user — Chauvin’s defense called him an “addict” — who probably had built a tolerance to the drug and could consume larger-than-average amounts without overdosing, experts said. Longtime opioid users often need to take increasing amounts of the drug to achieve the same level of euphoria.

The ratio of fentanyl to one of its by-products, norfentanyl, in Floyd’s blood is consistent with chronic use rather than an acute overdose, Babu said.

The amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood also provides only one piece to an overall puzzle, they said. Toxicology is not nearly as precise as it appears on television crime shows. After death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically, as substances move from organs and viscera into the bloodstream, a point the prosecution raises in its legal papers. The amount found in overdose victims varies widely.

...

Nelson, the toxicologist, said “it is not inconceivable” that fentanyl caused some respiratory depression in Floyd, but the drug’s impact cannot be considered separately from the officers’ behavior. Had Floyd been alone, he “probably wouldn’t have died,” Nelson said.

“If you’re not breathing well because you have respiratory depression, adding compression to the chest and neck is certainly going to contribute,” he said.

“Context matters,” Babu said.

Oh, snap! Context matters! Who knew???

Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

Quote:A memorandum filed by the Hennepin County Attorney’s office on June 1 indicated that chief medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who listed Floyd’s death as a homicide, thought the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

According to another memo on June 1, Dr. Baker told investigators that while Floyd had a high amount of fentanyl in his system, he was “not saying this killed him.”

Former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide, explained that the amount of fentanyl that was in Floyd's system can have vastly different effects on different people.

“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

Quote: Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

Quote:and some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE.

(06-28-2021 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well golly gee willikers, you werent even sure he had problems that were aside from the ordinary when this started.


It was in there when you look for it. The report on the heart listed the issues, albeit in dry, clinical terms. Maybe not 'heart failure' but he did have very severe heart disease, very clogged cardiac veins, various signs of atrophy, and a very enlarged heart due to the overexertion that it had to do to keep up.


Please do tell what I am doing so, oh sage master of all.


What if space aliens gave it to him? I mean, given all the 'what ifs' you are coming up with why not that one.....


Oh goody, another what if. Amazing that.

Again, my friend (the PhD pharmacology researcher specializing in opioid issues) said that the vast majority of the people who have that dosage in their system, that would be a fatal dose. That amount *has* to affect the involuntary action of breathing at some level. He also did say, that Floyd *could* be an outlier in that respect, and that he has encountered, in an extraordinarily infrequent sense, doses of that level that are not fatal.

So yes, your string of 'what ifs' is potentially valid. Highly unlikely, but fair.

Me, I guess that if Floyd was the fentanyl warhorse that you posit above with your string of 'what ifs', Chauvin had the most fing terrible string of bad luck that any person might imagine.

But you seemingly cant wrap your arms around the fact that a whole boatload of Fentanyl was coarsing around in St George's system and that the out on the right hand side of the curve level of an LD50 dose had zero effect on the St George and his ability to breathe. Its a free country, you can believe whatever you want.

Wrong. I haven't been advocating for that. You seem to not be able to wrap your arms around the concept that a snapshot level of Fentanyl is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

It actually is. Think of it this way --- I am saying that one who blows a .75 on an Intoxilyzer likely has a fatal dose of alcohol. Of course, people have been known to blow a .75 and live. But it is widely held that a .4 is fatal dose.

You, on the other hand, are saying, well, he blew a .75, but that snapshot level of BAC is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

Quote:No offense, but that is bs. The context is the sparingly small number of people that blow a .75 and live to tell about.

And some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE. What do you think the Fentanyl level is on patients with chronic pain who use Fentanyl patches daily? I would imagine that it would be enough to kill me, TBH.

I'm sorry that you don't think that context is important here but it is.

Article from WaPo in March, 2021 looked at this. Perhaps this left-wing rag just happened to find 7 commie medical experts... who knows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html

Some highlights:

Quote:Seven experts in toxicology, cardiology and illegal drug use consulted by The Washington Post largely disagreed with that idea, most of them strenuously. All but one said the autopsy findings and other court documents, coupled with the well-known chain of events that evening, made death by a fentanyl overdose unlikely to impossible. (One expert, Craig Beavers, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s cardiovascular team section, said he did not have enough information about all the circumstances to form a final conclusion.)

...

“I’m skeptical of the notion of opioid overdose as the cause here,” said David Juurlink, head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. “The sequence of events isn’t characteristic of opioid overdose.”

Fentanyl kills by shutting down the part of the brain that controls respiration. Breathing slows, then stops, followed by the heart.

If Floyd had ingested an opioid and fell asleep on his way toward an overdose death, several experts told The Post, he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, have spent the next 20 minutes coherently interacting with police, repeatedly describing his claustrophobia and anxiety, battling with them as they tried to put him in a squad car and struggling against the three officers who pinned him facedown on the street. Instead, he would have become even more sluggish on the path toward unconsciousness and death, these experts said.

“It’s just complete garbage to call it an overdose,” said Kimberly Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, a national advocacy group, and a Yale School of Medicine instructor. In an opioid overdose, “a person is basically blue, unresponsive. … It happens usually from the moment people use to 10 minutes.”

...

The experts agreed that the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd’s blood was very high, at 11 nanograms per milliliter. Lewis Nelson, chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology for Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said that amount indicates enough to cause a fatal overdose in someone taking the drug for the first time. The analysis was conducted by NMS Labs, a Pennsylvania company.

But Floyd was a longtime fentanyl user — Chauvin’s defense called him an “addict” — who probably had built a tolerance to the drug and could consume larger-than-average amounts without overdosing, experts said. Longtime opioid users often need to take increasing amounts of the drug to achieve the same level of euphoria.

The ratio of fentanyl to one of its by-products, norfentanyl, in Floyd’s blood is consistent with chronic use rather than an acute overdose, Babu said.

The amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood also provides only one piece to an overall puzzle, they said. Toxicology is not nearly as precise as it appears on television crime shows. After death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically, as substances move from organs and viscera into the bloodstream, a point the prosecution raises in its legal papers. The amount found in overdose victims varies widely.

...

Nelson, the toxicologist, said “it is not inconceivable” that fentanyl caused some respiratory depression in Floyd, but the drug’s impact cannot be considered separately from the officers’ behavior. Had Floyd been alone, he “probably wouldn’t have died,” Nelson said.

“If you’re not breathing well because you have respiratory depression, adding compression to the chest and neck is certainly going to contribute,” he said.

“Context matters,” Babu said.

Oh, snap! Context matters! Who knew???

Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

Quote:A memorandum filed by the Hennepin County Attorney’s office on June 1 indicated that chief medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who listed Floyd’s death as a homicide, thought the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

According to another memo on June 1, Dr. Baker told investigators that while Floyd had a high amount of fentanyl in his system, he was “not saying this killed him.”

Former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide, explained that the amount of fentanyl that was in Floyd's system can have vastly different effects on different people.

“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

By god you are using a lot of electrons to salvage the reputation of your St George.

Thank god we have St 93 to tell us that 4x a LD50 is going to be harmless for the most part. I am relieved.

Quote:

Quote:and some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE.

I didnt dispute that. But, per my colleague (who has been doing just this for 35+ years),while some people might be JUST FINE, the vast, vast majority will be stone cold dead at that level. And apparently St George is the one you have annointed for that particular miracle.

(06-28-2021 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well golly gee willikers, you werent even sure he had problems that were aside from the ordinary when this started.


It was in there when you look for it. The report on the heart listed the issues, albeit in dry, clinical terms. Maybe not 'heart failure' but he did have very severe heart disease, very clogged cardiac veins, various signs of atrophy, and a very enlarged heart due to the overexertion that it had to do to keep up.


Please do tell what I am doing so, oh sage master of all.


What if space aliens gave it to him? I mean, given all the 'what ifs' you are coming up with why not that one.....


Oh goody, another what if. Amazing that.

Again, my friend (the PhD pharmacology researcher specializing in opioid issues) said that the vast majority of the people who have that dosage in their system, that would be a fatal dose. That amount *has* to affect the involuntary action of breathing at some level. He also did say, that Floyd *could* be an outlier in that respect, and that he has encountered, in an extraordinarily infrequent sense, doses of that level that are not fatal.

So yes, your string of 'what ifs' is potentially valid. Highly unlikely, but fair.

Me, I guess that if Floyd was the fentanyl warhorse that you posit above with your string of 'what ifs', Chauvin had the most fing terrible string of bad luck that any person might imagine.

But you seemingly cant wrap your arms around the fact that a whole boatload of Fentanyl was coarsing around in St George's system and that the out on the right hand side of the curve level of an LD50 dose had zero effect on the St George and his ability to breathe. Its a free country, you can believe whatever you want.

Wrong. I haven't been advocating for that. You seem to not be able to wrap your arms around the concept that a snapshot level of Fentanyl is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

It actually is. Think of it this way --- I am saying that one who blows a .75 on an Intoxilyzer likely has a fatal dose of alcohol. Of course, people have been known to blow a .75 and live. But it is widely held that a .4 is fatal dose.

You, on the other hand, are saying, well, he blew a .75, but that snapshot level of BAC is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

Quote:No offense, but that is bs. The context is the sparingly small number of people that blow a .75 and live to tell about.

And some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE. What do you think the Fentanyl level is on patients with chronic pain who use Fentanyl patches daily? I would imagine that it would be enough to kill me, TBH.

I'm sorry that you don't think that context is important here but it is.

Article from WaPo in March, 2021 looked at this. Perhaps this left-wing rag just happened to find 7 commie medical experts... who knows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html

Some highlights:

Quote:Seven experts in toxicology, cardiology and illegal drug use consulted by The Washington Post largely disagreed with that idea, most of them strenuously. All but one said the autopsy findings and other court documents, coupled with the well-known chain of events that evening, made death by a fentanyl overdose unlikely to impossible. (One expert, Craig Beavers, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s cardiovascular team section, said he did not have enough information about all the circumstances to form a final conclusion.)

...

“I’m skeptical of the notion of opioid overdose as the cause here,” said David Juurlink, head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. “The sequence of events isn’t characteristic of opioid overdose.”

Fentanyl kills by shutting down the part of the brain that controls respiration. Breathing slows, then stops, followed by the heart.

If Floyd had ingested an opioid and fell asleep on his way toward an overdose death, several experts told The Post, he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, have spent the next 20 minutes coherently interacting with police, repeatedly describing his claustrophobia and anxiety, battling with them as they tried to put him in a squad car and struggling against the three officers who pinned him facedown on the street. Instead, he would have become even more sluggish on the path toward unconsciousness and death, these experts said.

“It’s just complete garbage to call it an overdose,” said Kimberly Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, a national advocacy group, and a Yale School of Medicine instructor. In an opioid overdose, “a person is basically blue, unresponsive. … It happens usually from the moment people use to 10 minutes.”

...

The experts agreed that the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd’s blood was very high, at 11 nanograms per milliliter. Lewis Nelson, chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology for Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said that amount indicates enough to cause a fatal overdose in someone taking the drug for the first time. The analysis was conducted by NMS Labs, a Pennsylvania company.

But Floyd was a longtime fentanyl user — Chauvin’s defense called him an “addict” — who probably had built a tolerance to the drug and could consume larger-than-average amounts without overdosing, experts said. Longtime opioid users often need to take increasing amounts of the drug to achieve the same level of euphoria.

The ratio of fentanyl to one of its by-products, norfentanyl, in Floyd’s blood is consistent with chronic use rather than an acute overdose, Babu said.

The amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood also provides only one piece to an overall puzzle, they said. Toxicology is not nearly as precise as it appears on television crime shows. After death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically, as substances move from organs and viscera into the bloodstream, a point the prosecution raises in its legal papers. The amount found in overdose victims varies widely.

...

Nelson, the toxicologist, said “it is not inconceivable” that fentanyl caused some respiratory depression in Floyd, but the drug’s impact cannot be considered separately from the officers’ behavior. Had Floyd been alone, he “probably wouldn’t have died,” Nelson said.

“If you’re not breathing well because you have respiratory depression, adding compression to the chest and neck is certainly going to contribute,” he said.

“Context matters,” Babu said.

Oh, snap! Context matters! Who knew???

Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

Quote:A memorandum filed by the Hennepin County Attorney’s office on June 1 indicated that chief medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who listed Floyd’s death as a homicide, thought the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

According to another memo on June 1, Dr. Baker told investigators that while Floyd had a high amount of fentanyl in his system, he was “not saying this killed him.”

Former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide, explained that the amount of fentanyl that was in Floyd's system can have vastly different effects on different people.

“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

By god you are using a lot of electrons to salvage the reputation of your St George.

Thank god we have St 93 to tell us that 4x a LD50 is going to be harmless for the most part. I am relieved.

Quote: Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

It is one that my colleague (who has been doing just this for 35+ years) proffered. I'll go with his advice and sage wisdom as opposed to yours taht surprsingly doubts anything that leans against the tale St George.

Quote:and some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE.

I didnt dispute that. But, per my colleague (again, who has been doing just this for 35+ years), while some people might be JUST FINE, the vast, vast, vast majority will be stone cold dead at that level. And apparently St George is the one you have annointed for that particular miracle.

I mean, you previously stated that you thought that the drug investiture at that moment for StG was of zero import on how you looked at the case. I shouldnt be surprised at your continuance of this.

(06-28-2021 11:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 08:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Wrong. I haven't been advocating for that. You seem to not be able to wrap your arms around the concept that a snapshot level of Fentanyl is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

It actually is. Think of it this way --- I am saying that one who blows a .75 on an Intoxilyzer likely has a fatal dose of alcohol. Of course, people have been known to blow a .75 and live. But it is widely held that a .4 is fatal dose.

You, on the other hand, are saying, well, he blew a .75, but that snapshot level of BAC is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

Quote:No offense, but that is bs. The context is the sparingly small number of people that blow a .75 and live to tell about.

And some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE. What do you think the Fentanyl level is on patients with chronic pain who use Fentanyl patches daily? I would imagine that it would be enough to kill me, TBH.

I'm sorry that you don't think that context is important here but it is.

Article from WaPo in March, 2021 looked at this. Perhaps this left-wing rag just happened to find 7 commie medical experts... who knows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html

Some highlights:

Quote:Seven experts in toxicology, cardiology and illegal drug use consulted by The Washington Post largely disagreed with that idea, most of them strenuously. All but one said the autopsy findings and other court documents, coupled with the well-known chain of events that evening, made death by a fentanyl overdose unlikely to impossible. (One expert, Craig Beavers, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s cardiovascular team section, said he did not have enough information about all the circumstances to form a final conclusion.)

...

“I’m skeptical of the notion of opioid overdose as the cause here,” said David Juurlink, head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. “The sequence of events isn’t characteristic of opioid overdose.”

Fentanyl kills by shutting down the part of the brain that controls respiration. Breathing slows, then stops, followed by the heart.

If Floyd had ingested an opioid and fell asleep on his way toward an overdose death, several experts told The Post, he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, have spent the next 20 minutes coherently interacting with police, repeatedly describing his claustrophobia and anxiety, battling with them as they tried to put him in a squad car and struggling against the three officers who pinned him facedown on the street. Instead, he would have become even more sluggish on the path toward unconsciousness and death, these experts said.

“It’s just complete garbage to call it an overdose,” said Kimberly Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, a national advocacy group, and a Yale School of Medicine instructor. In an opioid overdose, “a person is basically blue, unresponsive. … It happens usually from the moment people use to 10 minutes.”

...

The experts agreed that the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd’s blood was very high, at 11 nanograms per milliliter. Lewis Nelson, chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology for Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said that amount indicates enough to cause a fatal overdose in someone taking the drug for the first time. The analysis was conducted by NMS Labs, a Pennsylvania company.

But Floyd was a longtime fentanyl user — Chauvin’s defense called him an “addict” — who probably had built a tolerance to the drug and could consume larger-than-average amounts without overdosing, experts said. Longtime opioid users often need to take increasing amounts of the drug to achieve the same level of euphoria.

The ratio of fentanyl to one of its by-products, norfentanyl, in Floyd’s blood is consistent with chronic use rather than an acute overdose, Babu said.

The amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood also provides only one piece to an overall puzzle, they said. Toxicology is not nearly as precise as it appears on television crime shows. After death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically, as substances move from organs and viscera into the bloodstream, a point the prosecution raises in its legal papers. The amount found in overdose victims varies widely.

...

Nelson, the toxicologist, said “it is not inconceivable” that fentanyl caused some respiratory depression in Floyd, but the drug’s impact cannot be considered separately from the officers’ behavior. Had Floyd been alone, he “probably wouldn’t have died,” Nelson said.

“If you’re not breathing well because you have respiratory depression, adding compression to the chest and neck is certainly going to contribute,” he said.

“Context matters,” Babu said.

Oh, snap! Context matters! Who knew???

Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

Quote:A memorandum filed by the Hennepin County Attorney’s office on June 1 indicated that chief medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who listed Floyd’s death as a homicide, thought the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

According to another memo on June 1, Dr. Baker told investigators that while Floyd had a high amount of fentanyl in his system, he was “not saying this killed him.”

Former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide, explained that the amount of fentanyl that was in Floyd's system can have vastly different effects on different people.

“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

By god you are using a lot of electrons to salvage the reputation of your St George.

Thank god we have St 93 to tell us that 4x a LD50 is going to be harmless for the most part. I am relieved.

Quote: Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

It is one that my colleague (who has been doing just this for 35+ years) proffered. I'll go with his advice and sage wisdom as opposed to yours taht surprsingly doubts anything that leans against the tale St George.

Quote:and some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE.

I didnt dispute that. But, per my colleague (again, who has been doing just this for 35+ years), while some people might be JUST FINE, the vast, vast, vast majority will be stone cold dead at that level. And apparently St George is the one you have annointed for that particular miracle.

I mean, you previously stated that you thought that the drug investiture at that moment for StG was of zero import on how you looked at the case. I shouldnt be surprised at your continuance of this.

LOL. You originally said that Floyd died of a "heart attack" when we first discussed this issue so I shouldn't be surprised that you continue to look for any underlying medical issue to cover for Chauvain.

(06-28-2021 11:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By god you are using a lot of electrons to salvage the reputation of your St George.

Thank god we have St 93 to tell us that 4x a LD50 is going to be harmless for the most part. I am relieved.

I'm not going to defend things I didn't say. You keep throwing out arguments we don't make just so you can poke holes in them.

Quote:Floyd doesn't die without the unreasonable actions of Chauvain.

(06-28-2021 11:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 07:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You still havent told us which of the 4 or 5 different ways that the prosecution told us that Chauvin killed Floyd you subscribe to, mind you.

And they absolutely shied away from it as 'the definitive cause of death'. Maybe they tossed out the other 3 or four methods and modes to be cute or something..... I guess if having one definitive cause of death is good, well, I guess three more is triple good in your book. Sounds fun.

The problem is, you didnt bother with the trial as a whole, now you are coming in here like some god savant telling us what they did. Sounds like an interesting take. So what *does* 3 or 4 *other* COD modes sound like to you? Embracing #1?

But back to the first line in the post --- I guess you will avoid that steadfastly, kind of like the question I ask of 'how do *you* define 'white' and 'black' for the purposes of discrimination?'

So yes, you say 'suffocate'. The problem is that even for much of the time in trial the prosecution didnt agree with you on a full time basis. is this your 'omniscient godlike knowledge' thingy rearing its head once again? Funny, if so, you might answer some of the questions noted above.

But the standard you set out above is seemingly 'if a witness says it' it must be true.

Given that standard, I assume you are all on board with the defense witness who said that Floyd was helped to his death by being too close to a tailpipe and carbon monoxide was the culprit.

I mean, that is the gold standard you state above --- a witness says it so therefore a professional opinion *must* be true.

Interesting standard to toss out there.

I am grateful for your deep incisive feel on what the prosecution did or did not do, since you are apparently a savant on this. Amazing. maybe you should talk to Keith Ellison on a savant position with the Minnesota AG office. Sound good with you?

I'm old enough to remember when "Seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" was considered poor form by some. Oh well. The times change I guess.

When lad decides to play expert lawyer when his background is more like watching Perry Mason, and keeps going at it, a response like that is somewhat inevitable.

Yes, the HORRORS of calling him on that. The sheer unadulterated horror. You are so brave.

By the way, have you read up between 'fact issues at trial' and conjecture yet? Might be a good time.

You think I’m making legal arguments here and arguing about the court case?

You prodded me by saying I was wrong to use the word suffocate and then you doubled down on the idea that the prosecution wanted to avoid the related word asphyxiation.

Actually *you* are the one that promotes this -- now.

Here is what I said: "The prosecution shied away from 'choking' or asphyxia. That wasnt one in their 4-5 reasons of death. The facts in the case dont tag along with your 'choking' or lad's 'strangled' wordings."

And I have a typo there -- the wasnt should be 'was' -- and my later examples bear out that they went down the 'choke trail' (twice in fact) then backed off. That is, when the dumb*** tae kwon do dude shot up their first theory, and the second when the 'boot NOT on the neck' shot up their second.

The prosecution charged down the asphyxia trail. In two or three modalaties. And people said it a lot. But then they had a few *real* bad witnesses, and then what? They went down another modality. The shied away from it.

But yet, now *you* argue that I said 'they wanted to avoid the word' --- I didnt say that. I said they went gung-ho down the trail, then backed off when they got a two by four across their face with a couple of witnesses in a row.

Somehow you think that the words appearing is proof that they didnt move away from it, or shy away from it. That is a dumb*** assumption, Encyclopedia Brown.

Ive tried a number of times to explpain the issue, but yuo steadfastly fing refuse to recognize what I am saying. Fine, with me. Go jump in a lake.

Quote:I simply looked up articles and kept proving both of your points wrong.

I watched a great portion of the trial son. The above is what happened. But please, tell me what did happen since you fing obviously watched a **** ton of it yourself.

Quote:There seems to be plenty of evidence that you were factually wrong on both accounts. Instead of saying mea culpa, you’ve tried to dance around or lash out as a way to distract from the very simple fact that your initial points were factually wrong.

What happened is that *you* twisted some words and concepts around. Like you invariably fing do.

Quote:I mean, how do you even think I’m playing lawyer? What legal opinion have I offered specifically? Lol

Since you are teling us exactly what happened in the course of the trial, dude. You know, the one yo probably just saw some snippets on and are now the fing expert on the course of action the prosecution and defense took.

(06-29-2021 12:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 11:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 11:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 10:48 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It actually is. Think of it this way --- I am saying that one who blows a .75 on an Intoxilyzer likely has a fatal dose of alcohol. Of course, people have been known to blow a .75 and live. But it is widely held that a .4 is fatal dose.

You, on the other hand, are saying, well, he blew a .75, but that snapshot level of BAC is not that valuable in the absence of any context.

Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

Quote:No offense, but that is bs. The context is the sparingly small number of people that blow a .75 and live to tell about.

And some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE. What do you think the Fentanyl level is on patients with chronic pain who use Fentanyl patches daily? I would imagine that it would be enough to kill me, TBH.

I'm sorry that you don't think that context is important here but it is.

Article from WaPo in March, 2021 looked at this. Perhaps this left-wing rag just happened to find 7 commie medical experts... who knows:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html

Some highlights:

Quote:Seven experts in toxicology, cardiology and illegal drug use consulted by The Washington Post largely disagreed with that idea, most of them strenuously. All but one said the autopsy findings and other court documents, coupled with the well-known chain of events that evening, made death by a fentanyl overdose unlikely to impossible. (One expert, Craig Beavers, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s cardiovascular team section, said he did not have enough information about all the circumstances to form a final conclusion.)

...

“I’m skeptical of the notion of opioid overdose as the cause here,” said David Juurlink, head of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto. “The sequence of events isn’t characteristic of opioid overdose.”

Fentanyl kills by shutting down the part of the brain that controls respiration. Breathing slows, then stops, followed by the heart.

If Floyd had ingested an opioid and fell asleep on his way toward an overdose death, several experts told The Post, he wouldn’t, or couldn’t, have spent the next 20 minutes coherently interacting with police, repeatedly describing his claustrophobia and anxiety, battling with them as they tried to put him in a squad car and struggling against the three officers who pinned him facedown on the street. Instead, he would have become even more sluggish on the path toward unconsciousness and death, these experts said.

“It’s just complete garbage to call it an overdose,” said Kimberly Sue, medical director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, a national advocacy group, and a Yale School of Medicine instructor. In an opioid overdose, “a person is basically blue, unresponsive. … It happens usually from the moment people use to 10 minutes.”

...

The experts agreed that the amount of fentanyl found in Floyd’s blood was very high, at 11 nanograms per milliliter. Lewis Nelson, chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology for Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said that amount indicates enough to cause a fatal overdose in someone taking the drug for the first time. The analysis was conducted by NMS Labs, a Pennsylvania company.

But Floyd was a longtime fentanyl user — Chauvin’s defense called him an “addict” — who probably had built a tolerance to the drug and could consume larger-than-average amounts without overdosing, experts said. Longtime opioid users often need to take increasing amounts of the drug to achieve the same level of euphoria.

The ratio of fentanyl to one of its by-products, norfentanyl, in Floyd’s blood is consistent with chronic use rather than an acute overdose, Babu said.

The amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood also provides only one piece to an overall puzzle, they said. Toxicology is not nearly as precise as it appears on television crime shows. After death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically, as substances move from organs and viscera into the bloodstream, a point the prosecution raises in its legal papers. The amount found in overdose victims varies widely.

...

Nelson, the toxicologist, said “it is not inconceivable” that fentanyl caused some respiratory depression in Floyd, but the drug’s impact cannot be considered separately from the officers’ behavior. Had Floyd been alone, he “probably wouldn’t have died,” Nelson said.

“If you’re not breathing well because you have respiratory depression, adding compression to the chest and neck is certainly going to contribute,” he said.

“Context matters,” Babu said.

Oh, snap! Context matters! Who knew???

Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

Quote:A memorandum filed by the Hennepin County Attorney’s office on June 1 indicated that chief medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, who listed Floyd’s death as a homicide, thought the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

“[Dr. Baker] said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death,” the memo said.

According to another memo on June 1, Dr. Baker told investigators that while Floyd had a high amount of fentanyl in his system, he was “not saying this killed him.”

Former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide, explained that the amount of fentanyl that was in Floyd's system can have vastly different effects on different people.

“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

By god you are using a lot of electrons to salvage the reputation of your St George.

Thank god we have St 93 to tell us that 4x a LD50 is going to be harmless for the most part. I am relieved.

Quote: Not sure about this comparison in terms of 0.11 ng/ml Fentanyl compared to 0.75 BAC. It's probably a bit apples/oranges.

It is one that my colleague (who has been doing just this for 35+ years) proffered. I'll go with his advice and sage wisdom as opposed to yours taht surprsingly doubts anything that leans against the tale St George.

Quote:and some people will have a Fentanyl level of 11 ng/ml and be JUST FINE.

I didnt dispute that. But, per my colleague (again, who has been doing just this for 35+ years), while some people might be JUST FINE, the vast, vast, vast majority will be stone cold dead at that level. And apparently St George is the one you have annointed for that particular miracle.

I mean, you previously stated that you thought that the drug investiture at that moment for StG was of zero import on how you looked at the case. I shouldnt be surprised at your continuance of this.

LOL. You originally said that Floyd died of a "heart attack" when we first discussed this issue so I shouldn't be surprised that you continue to look for any underlying medical issue to cover for Chauvain.

Yep, I brought up the issue that people on the scene said he wasnt looking or sounding right. Still the case.

And, the heart issue was seemingly corroborated by the condition of his heart. You know, the condition you were uniquely ignorant about.

Quote:Oh, I forgot, the fentanyl doesnt affect saints, so that cannot be the case.

I mean, it is like someone has taken a glob of white-out (ooh, bad pun there, unintentional) to the effects of Apache as it pertains to St George for you.

I mean, prior to today in your point of view, St George had a normal heart for an overweight guy, and a 3-5x fatal dose (maybe more) of fentanyl has zero impact on St George's bad day at the market. Quite the unique viewpoint one might say.

Yep, George *may* have tossed down a proverbial boatload of Apache with no ill effects or issues affecting his respiratory system. Absolutely. Odds are that isnt the case. But please make some more efforts to cover for that.

(06-29-2021 05:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 11:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm old enough to remember when "Seems like a lot of conjecture, TBH" was considered poor form by some. Oh well. The times change I guess.

When lad decides to play expert lawyer when his background is more like watching Perry Mason, and keeps going at it, a response like that is somewhat inevitable.

Yes, the HORRORS of calling him on that. The sheer unadulterated horror. You are so brave.

By the way, have you read up between 'fact issues at trial' and conjecture yet? Might be a good time.

You think I’m making legal arguments here and arguing about the court case?

You prodded me by saying I was wrong to use the word suffocate and then you doubled down on the idea that the prosecution wanted to avoid the related word asphyxiation.

Actually *you* are the one that promotes this -- now.

Here is what I said: "The prosecution shied away from 'choking' or asphyxia. That wasnt one in their 4-5 reasons of death. The facts in the case dont tag along with your 'choking' or lad's 'strangled' wordings."

And I have a typo there -- the wasnt should be 'was' -- and my later examples bear out that they went down the 'choke trail' (twice in fact) then backed off. That is, when the dumb*** tae kwon do dude shot up their first theory, and the second when the 'boot NOT on the neck' shot up their second.

The prosecution charged down the asphyxia trail. In two or three modalaties. And people said it a lot. But then they had a few *real* bad witnesses, and then what? They went down another modality. The shied away from it.

But yet, now *you* argue that I said 'they wanted to avoid the word' --- I didnt say that. I said they went gung-ho down the trail, then backed off when they got a two by four across their face with a couple of witnesses in a row.

Somehow you think that the words appearing is proof that they didnt move away from it, or shy away from it. That is a dumb*** assumption, Encyclopedia Brown.

Ive tried a number of times to explpain the issue, but yuo steadfastly fing refuse to recognize what I am saying. Fine, with me. Go jump in a lake.

Quote:I simply looked up articles and kept proving both of your points wrong.

I watched a great portion of the trial son. The above is what happened. But please, tell me what did happen since you fing obviously watched a **** ton of it yourself.

Quote:There seems to be plenty of evidence that you were factually wrong on both accounts. Instead of saying mea culpa, you’ve tried to dance around or lash out as a way to distract from the very simple fact that your initial points were factually wrong.

What happened is that *you* twisted some words and concepts around. Like you invariably fing do.

Quote:I mean, how do you even think I’m playing lawyer? What legal opinion have I offered specifically? Lol

Since you are teling us exactly what happened in the course of the trial, dude. You know, the one yo probably just saw some snippets on and are now the fing expert on the course of action the prosecution and defense took.

Buried in here is that you admit to a typo that completely changes the meaning of the first post.

It also includes you quoting your own post (how the prosecution shied away from asphyxia) and then immediately saying you DIDN’T say that they shied away from it..

If you misstated that first, just like you made a typo, then say that.

Instead, dance dance dance like you so much love to accuse me of doing.

I could care less how the court case evolved - i keep telling you, im responding to your initial claims that started all this that you aren’t willing to admit you were wrong about (well, you did admit to a rather important typo, so there is that).

Quote:“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

Quote:"who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide"

(06-29-2021 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way 93, I particularly like the quote you provide as the sin qua non of the matter, i.e. this one;

Quote:

Quote:“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

Let me highlight something that, in the world of bold you provided, you did not highlight.

Quote:"who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide"

Great, so you list a paid witness for the George family in support of your "George was not affected by a really high dose of Apache". Sounds fun.

But here is the really fun part --- *you* skip over the fact he was paid by the George family for an autopsy and focus on the 'Fox News contributor'. Rather rich set of highlighting I would say.

Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And further in the explanations there is this: "after death, the amount of drug in the blood can increase dramatically,".

That wouldnt be the case in St George's case, since the studies cited used blood taken at autopsy --- well after the fact of death.. The blood from St George was from two sources --- one from one taken either at the scene or on the ride to hospital, and one directly at the hospital when he was being attended to. (per the trial itself).

(06-29-2021 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way 93, I particularly like the quote you provide as the sin qua non of the matter, i.e. this one;

That one quote is the sin qua non? I don't think that was implied.

Quote:

Quote:“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

Let me highlight something that, in the world of bold you provided, you did not highlight.

Quote:"who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide"

Great, so you list a paid witness for the George family in support of your "George was not affected by a really high dose of Apache". Sounds fun.

But here is the really fun part --- *you* skip over the fact he was paid by the George family for an autopsy and focus on the 'Fox News contributor'. Rather rich set of highlighting I would say.

I don't skip over the fact. I included it. Sorry I didn't bold it.

Quote:Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

(06-29-2021 09:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way 93, I particularly like the quote you provide as the sin qua non of the matter, i.e. this one;

That one quote is the sin qua non? I don't think that was implied.

Quote:

Quote:“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

Let me highlight something that, in the world of bold you provided, you did not highlight.

Quote:"who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide"

Great, so you list a paid witness for the George family in support of your "George was not affected by a really high dose of Apache". Sounds fun.

But here is the really fun part --- *you* skip over the fact he was paid by the George family for an autopsy and focus on the 'Fox News contributor'. Rather rich set of highlighting I would say.

I don't skip over the fact. I included it. Sorry I didn't bold it.

Funny -- here is *your* introduction:

Quote:Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

You highlight the Fox News --- check.

You skip over the paid consultant in the intro -- check.

You obviously think/feel that the 'Fox News' is highly more germane on the subject than.... well..... he was a paid witness. Sound about right to you?

You felt it much more highly pertinent that he was on Fox New saying this, than that he was..... uhhh.... a paid witness by a party.

I would probably disagree with what you chose to highlight. But then again, "Floyd doesn't die without the unreasonable actions of Chauvain".

(06-29-2021 09:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 09:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 08:45 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way 93, I particularly like the quote you provide as the sin qua non of the matter, i.e. this one;

That one quote is the sin qua non? I don't think that was implied.

Quote:

Quote:“Like all narcotics, there’s a wide range of what’s lethal or not, because it all depends on the tolerance of the individual from whom the blood has been drawn,” Baden, a Fox News contributor, said Thursday. “So clearly, that could be fatal to some people, not necessarily for others. But the circumstances of death are very important, especially in this case.”

Let me highlight something that, in the world of bold you provided, you did not highlight.

Quote:"who performed an autopsy for Floyd’s family that also determined his death was a homicide"

Great, so you list a paid witness for the George family in support of your "George was not affected by a really high dose of Apache". Sounds fun.

But here is the really fun part --- *you* skip over the fact he was paid by the George family for an autopsy and focus on the 'Fox News contributor'. Rather rich set of highlighting I would say.

I don't skip over the fact. I included it. Sorry I didn't bold it.

Funny -- here is *your* introduction:

Quote:Here is that celebrated lefty website FoxNews back in April, 2020:

You highlight the Fox News --- check.

You skip over the paid consultant in the intro -- check.

You obviously think/feel that the 'Fox News' is highly more germane on the subject than.... well..... he was a paid witness. Sound about right to you?

You felt it much more highly pertinent that he was on Fox New saying this, than that he was..... uhhh.... a paid witness by a party.

I would probably disagree with what you chose to highlight. But then again, "Floyd doesn't die without the unreasonable actions of Chauvain".

I mean... was I supposed to bold the entire article?