fasciz wrote:
yawn wrote:
I cannot trust a source who literally made up quotes for political gain.
Well the good news is there are other sources within. But the real truth is that you don’t like the facts they present.
Which facts exist in a false story?
Not all areas are the same wrote:
fasciz wrote:
Well the good news is there are other sources within. But the real truth is that you don’t like the facts they present.
Which facts exist in a false story?
How is trashcan’s article false? How is it devoid of facts?
fasciz wrote:
Not all areas are the same wrote:
Which facts exist in a false story?
How is trashcan’s article false? How is it devoid of facts?
I believe he was talking about the New York Times and the Russian hoax.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
fasciz wrote:
How is trashcan’s article false? How is it devoid of facts?
I believe he was talking about the New York Times and the Russian hoax.
Lol no he was not, try to keep up.
fasciz wrote:
Not all areas are the same wrote:
I believe he was talking about the New York Times and the Russian hoax.
Lol no he was not, try to keep up.
yawn wrote:
So the murals, George Floyd Square/autonomous zone, settlement, and positive media attention are not example of worship? Did you even watch the jury selection, the dismissed one candidate because he tweeted that the road Floyd died in was “hallowed ground”
How is any of that relevant to the 9'29" when Floyd was under Chauvin's knee?
1) I initially posted that in a thread that I asked why the toxicology report never showed up in the main stream or liberal media. Clearly it was addressed.
2) One of the people they quoted was one of the people I would specifically go to if I wanted to ask and in-depth question on the subject.
3) As I mentioned in my post very little from that article was new to me.
trashcan wrote:
wazzu1452 wrote:
Reasonable doubt is supposed to be the standard. How is there not, at the very least, reasonable doubt about whether Floyd died from being restrained as opposed to overdosing?
I posted this article and explanation on another thread. I thought I saw your post on this thread but seeing as you asked I figured I would post it again
First I will give you some things that I knew before reading the article, as I have some knowledge base in the area
1) You cannot say that someone it has taken a lethal Dose of opiates like fentanyl based just on their blood level. The amount of tolerance that can develop through use over time is staggering
2) fentanyl fatalities are almost always the result of respiratory depression
3) Methamphetamine counteracts respiratory depression
4) Respiratory depression is normally preceded by sedation to unconsciousness. GF’s behavior prior to the knee to the neck is inconsistent with what one would expect prior to unconsciousness and death due to respiratory depression
The article noted most of those points. It also noted that
1) There are bio markers of opiate dependence, and GF’s blood indicated that he had a significant dependence. Tolerance goes with dependence
2) it reminded me that post-Mortem shifts complicate the interpretation of blood levels
It appeared that 6 of 7 experts said homicide, and one said they didn’t have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
I am not particularly knowledgeable with regards to the law so I can’t really speak to manslaughter versus homicide for this case, but certainly anyone claiming that the toxicology reports provides conclusive evidence that fentanyl killed GF should reassess how they process data.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html%3foutputType=amp
I took the bait and read the article. Completely one sided. Googled one of their experts to see if they hold a certain viewpoint and sure enough, they are very pro left (not all left leaning people are anti police but the number is not insignificant). Like I said, very unreliable source.
yawn wrote:
trashcan wrote:
I posted this article and explanation on another thread. I thought I saw your post on this thread but seeing as you asked I figured I would post it again
First I will give you some things that I knew before reading the article, as I have some knowledge base in the area
1) You cannot say that someone it has taken a lethal Dose of opiates like fentanyl based just on their blood level. The amount of tolerance that can develop through use over time is staggering
2) fentanyl fatalities are almost always the result of respiratory depression
3) Methamphetamine counteracts respiratory depression
4) Respiratory depression is normally preceded by sedation to unconsciousness. GF’s behavior prior to the knee to the neck is inconsistent with what one would expect prior to unconsciousness and death due to respiratory depression
The article noted most of those points. It also noted that
1) There are bio markers of opiate dependence, and GF’s blood indicated that he had a significant dependence. Tolerance goes with dependence
2) it reminded me that post-Mortem shifts complicate the interpretation of blood levels
It appeared that 6 of 7 experts said homicide, and one said they didn’t have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
I am not particularly knowledgeable with regards to the law so I can’t really speak to manslaughter versus homicide for this case, but certainly anyone claiming that the toxicology reports provides conclusive evidence that fentanyl killed GF should reassess how they process data.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/george-floyd-fentanyl/2021/03/10/c3d4f328-76ec-11eb-9537-496158cc5fd9_story.html%3foutputType=ampI took the bait and read the article. Completely one sided. Googled one of their experts to see if they hold a certain viewpoint and sure enough, they are very pro left (not all left leaning people are anti police but the number is not insignificant). Like I said, very unreliable source.
1) other than the expert opinions about guilt, do you dispute any of my points? If so which? If I supply data from medical journals would you be convinced? Go with the one you find most suspicious.
2) which expert did you google?
self proclaimed experts can claim homicide all they want, the fact is the only physical autopsy report revealed no evidence of neck trauma
Let it Rupp wrote:
Reflection_ wrote:
I agree! I don’t think they are examining the facts with honorable intents. They are not looking to see if reasonable doubt exists...they are looking for an excuse to hang onto their political biases. This isn’t about Chauvin or Floyd...this is about Republican v. Democrat!
You're projecting. You basically admitting you HOPE that this was a murder, and not drug induced tragedy, which says everything about your politics and your distorted thinking.
I don't think Chauvin was guilty of murder, an opinion of which I didn't initially have last year. When the initial photos were released, I thought for sure Chauvin would be convicted, and then the rest of the video evidence came out and the autopsy report come out and changed my mind. That is what good, moral people do, they base their opinions based on the TRUTH.
I am not projecting anything but common sense!
And you are a lie and a half...truth my as...truth would have you realize that Chauvin was responsible for GF well being regardless of what was in his system even if that meant restraining him for his safety and others. Truth would have you realize that Chauvin is responsible for every second GF is in his custody no different then he would be responsible for any bullet he would discharge from his service weapon....this truth includes after he has been restrained. The truth would have you accept that the officers are responsible for making sure he could breathe. The truth would have you accept that the officers were responsible to check his pulse when they acknowledge that GF had “passed out”.
The truth eludes you in this case bc you were biased from the start and that remains your current state!!
yawn wrote:
Reflection_ wrote:
Yes he was. You people can’t claim he was a giant but make him out to be an ant when it comes to getting into the limited space of the police suv. Anyone with unbiased eyes could see that the space in the back was very tight.
This is also why most smart police departments have “paddy wagons”. Bc one of there uses is to carry larger numbers and larger individuals.
You refuse to see patterns. I have seen it time and again where people suddenly develop phobias or medical ailments the minute they are in trouble. Floyd had a personal history of pulling this type of stunt.
Does his “stunts” excuse the officers from the responsibilities of GF’s safety and well being when they acknowledged that he “passed out”?
wapo is garbage. the us relative of the guardian.
what the article fails to mention in detail is that most fentanyl ods are from injecting / snorting.
GF was munching fentanyl in the police car, therefore the time frame appears to me to be completely consistant with a potential narrative; obviously already high in shop and in car on normal doses. gets weird etc as adrenalin etc kicks in and gets in car, eats his stash, and before it can sedate him through his digestive system, starts struggling, then the sedative effects start and he goes onto a digestive system od.
No, im not a doctor, but i know the difference between injected / snorted drugs and taking pills; we all do (maybe not snorted, sorry, me neither).
how does he eat his stash with his hands handcuffed behind him when off his tots on drugs?
also GFs alleged fiancee just testified today that GF was off of opiates for a few months and then started taking again only two weeks before the incident. undercuts even more the claim that an overdose is unlikely due to tolerance.
and tolerance to cardio-pulomonary effects do not follow tolerance to euphoria to the same degree. im pretty sure thats a big reason overdoses happen in the first place. tolerance to euphoria occurs more rapidly than tolerance to dangeous side effects, like suppressed breathing.
pupil3142 wrote:
wapo is garbage. the us relative of the guardian.
what the article fails to mention in detail is that most fentanyl ods are from injecting / snorting.
GF was munching fentanyl in the police car, therefore the time frame appears to me to be completely consistant with a potential narrative; obviously already high in shop and in car on normal doses. gets weird etc as adrenalin etc kicks in and gets in car, eats his stash, and before it can sedate him through his digestive system, starts struggling, then the sedative effects start and he goes onto a digestive system od.
No, im not a doctor, but i know the difference between injected / snorted drugs and taking pills; we all do (maybe not snorted, sorry, me neither).
Actually that time frame is much too fast for ingested drugs. Median t max is 40 minutes
https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/88/2/305/36529/Dose-Proportionality-and-Pharmacokinetics-of-Oral1) Average tolerance to respiratory effects in users is 4 x that of non-users. And that is not including the respiratory drive inducing effects of the methamphetamine
2) there is some literature indicating that a low norfentanyl/fentanyl ratio indicates likely of following abstinence. See first citation. He had a high norfentanyl/fentanyl ratio
3) “ with therapeutic use the expected postmortem blood fentanyl concentrations exceed the concentrations observed in kinetic studies of living people“ from the bottom citation.
peacefularson wrote:
self proclaimed experts can claim homicide all they want, the fact is the only physical autopsy report revealed no evidence of neck trauma
Autopsies said homicide. Also, of the 7 “self proclaimed experts” 3 were Chiefs of toxicology in major institutions who were completely unimpressed by the toxicology reports in conjunction with the video evidence. 2 were cardiologists.
Sorry, it looks like the methamphetamine level was sufficiently low that it was likely from the day before.
once again, they can claim all they want, i have not seen any foundation for that claim. i dont care what impresses them. no trauma, no strangulation.