(06-29-2021 11:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 10:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 10:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My comment was directed more generally, but since you responded...

You ABSOULTELY CAN NOT say what you said above and be factually accurate.
You cannot clinically PROVE your comment. If you believe it that's fine, but that's not the burden of proof in a legal case for murder. Can you find a doc with an axe who will say that?? Sure... but NO medical person without one would agree with you. Primarily because a good doctor wouldn't project like that. He can't possibly know what would have happened. What he knows is that it happened, and he died. That is ALL he knows.

In the same vein, there IS no 'single amount' of fentanyl that is 'safe' for all people in all conditions. The fact that he did it all the time makes it WORSE, and 'your side' of the argument makes it sound as if it makes it BETTER for him.

No, he won't die from the SHOCK of a high (which is a relative term) level of Fentanyl as easily as someone who has never taken it at all... this goes to the question of 'what is a lethal dose'.... but he WILL ABSOLUTELY have a dramatically weakened respiratory system and heart damage as a result of repeated and existing use.... and thus be more easily compromised by acts like Chauvin.

As I said... the ME said it was 'the combination',.... and both of you seem to be arguing that it wasn't.

I WILL say this. All other things being equal... George Floyd was MUCH more likely to die from complications related to things he did to himself including the Fentanyl than he was by what Chauvin did. I suspect the rate of accidental death from what Chauvin did is a fraction that of 'recreational' fentanyl. Doesn't make it right in my mind... just addressing the crux of the argument you guys seem to be having.

I actually did say the combination of stressors, bad heart, and reduced respiratory function due to Fentanyl was the toxic combination.

And, I did say that no one can point to any one of those. Funnily, not even the prosecution can point to a specific single modality of death.

That post, in its entirety, was written off as 'conjecture', which the last statement definitely was. The rest of that post had trial facts that were seemingly written off as 'loads conjecture' or somefink.

For the sake of honesty --- I did a back calculation on the dea data. I need to revise the 2-3 ng/mL to 5-7 or so based on the blood volume of a typical adult. I was wrong in that multiple.

In retrospect the 3-5x should not read as that. The double to almost double dosage per volume still speaks loudly as to the amount of fentanyl in Floyd.

I have a reasonable basic science background although I haven't used it in my career. I do remember the basics though.

You have a concentration (ng/ml) but you are talking about a dose ingested (mg).

An LD50 refers to a single dose. It's not a concentration.

What dose do you think he took? You are basing the dose on a single moment in time where his blood level was 11 ng/mL? And that 11 ng/mL certainly has the possibility for error as any lab tech will tell you.

Can you show your work? I doubt that a pathologist would tell you that they can calculate a dose based on the single data point of a blood concentration. I'm pretty sure that science wouldn't fly in court.

I don't think we have any idea how much Fentanyl George Floyd took.

He took enough to have an 11 ng/mL of unmetabolized in his system. He had just at or more unmetabolized opioids (fentanyl in particular) to be at or beyond double a lethal concentration. At the point in time when the blood was taken, no later than the emergency room or ambulance. And he still had a significant level of metabolized by-product as well.

If you use Dr Baker's standard, that is a 3-4x lethal concentration. Thank you for making me say that. It is more precise. I figure it might be closer to the 3X, maybe closer to 2x based on the above.

The issue isnt 'precisely how much did he take with dose x'. The issue is that his blood was an effective pharmacy market of fentanyl at the time.

And yet you keep excoriating me over "the massive amount of Fentanyl that he ingested".

He ingested enough to have an 11 ug/mL level in his system at that time. And a whole bunch of metabolized by products.

I dont care if he took it 3 hours previous, an hour previous, or, as the pills in the car suggest, just as the officers approached.

The singular fact is that he was loaded to hell and a hand basket at that encounter. The times that he took hit the Apache are immaterial as to what his BFC was at THAT time (to use your emphasis funnily enough...)

Quote:

Quote:The science of blood concentration *is* used in court, as opposed to your re-rendering it to a single dose. Happens millions of times a year in court, to be exact. Across a wide range of substances.

I rendered it to a single dose because YOU brought up LD50 which is based on a dose and not based on a concentration. Seriously, how could you miss that?

And I already stated that as an error previously, pardner. But apparently you keep hitting that chewtoy to the exclusion of everything else.

Perhaps I missed the LD50 issue in the same basic way you missed Floyd's heart condition. But, funny, I only now bring that basic f-up to light when you pop your mouth off like above. But please keep pounding that rock, pardner.

Quote:What is a "lethal concentration" of Fentanyl? Please provide reference.

Look at the autopsy notes for one. That was already put forward many moons ago. Dr Baker there said 'starting at 3 ug/mL' (or something similar). There are others I have seen previously. As I noted, hit the dea and cdc to start would be my suggestion, dude.

Quote:*edit* I'm sure the science of blood concentration is used in court however I suspect that your armchair forensic pathologist version of converting "snapshot concentration" to suspected dose would get laughed out of court, TBH.

Funny I dont think I claimed that it would withstand that. Please note where I have if you could, as contrasted to your stupid as **** assertion that I think it would stand as implied above.

By the way, I dont think I have mentioned a 'suspected dose' at any point in time. Please stop pulling **** out of thin air here. Or not. Your choice.