Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

OMM 0000

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

This is why I linked to a particular paper which goes through deaths and shows the dosage.

It's fascinating watching people here deny science because it disagrees with their belief system.

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Again with the lying.

Here's a literal screenshot from the paper:

https://imgur.com/a/reBAJNT

micrograms per litre.

You are just plain wrong. ml/L is 1ppm. ng/ml is 0.001 ppm.

That is undisputable fact.

Also thanks for the screenshot but there's absolutely no context there. ug/L of what. And from where? You need context. That's what units are for.

Mic 1972

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is why I linked to a particular paper which goes through deaths and shows the dosage.

It's fascinating watching people here deny science because it disagrees with their belief system.

it's the beauty of modern ideology.


Personal opinion matters more than evidence

ohnonotgmail

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

citing a fatal dose as 2mg is meaningless. the LD50 for fentanyl is 2.91mg/kg in rats, an oral LD50 of 18mg/kg in rats and 368mg/kg in mice. The LD50 for humans is unknown.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You are just plain wrong. ml/L is 1ppm. ng/ml is 0.001 ppm.

That is undisputable fact.

Also thanks for the screenshot but there's absolutely no context there. ug/L of what. And from where? You need context. That's what units are for.

Are you able to stop lying?

Here's two websites which convert microgram per litre to nanogram per millilitre:

https://www.convertunits.com/from/microgram+per+litre/to/nanogram+per+millilitre

http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ug_lng_ml.php

As you can see microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same.

I cannot believe you're now trying to pretend units of measurement mean nothing if we don't know what're being measured. Are you one of those people who thinks a ton of feathers is lighter than a ton of iron?

Retr0gamer

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

Taken orally or intraveneously. Also you won't find all of that in the blood. The liver will usually break it down over time and a some will be excreted by the kidneys and you'll therefore end up with a lot less in the blood. It's why levels in all three are important.

Also important to get the units right in them or you could be 1000 times off what you think it is.

OMM 0000

Mic 1972 wrote: »

it's the beauty of modern ideology.

Personal opinion matters more than evidence

They're literally jumping through hoops (or rather, gaslighting) to deny science.

But why? Why is it so difficult for them to accept Floyd was a serious drug addict who had a fatal amount of fentanyl in him? I feel like these people are acting like a christian extremist having a panic attack because someone suggested Jesus might have had sex every now and then.

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Are you able to stop lying?

Here's two websites which convert microgram per litre to nanogram per millilitre:

https://www.convertunits.com/from/microgram+per+litre/to/nanogram+per+millilitre

http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ug_lng_ml.php

As you can see microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same.

I cannot believe you're now trying to pretend units of measurement mean nothing if we don't know what're being measured. Are you one of those people who thinks a ton of feathers is lighter than a ton of iron?

You said milligrams. You're changing the goalposts not me.

And again, where are those values from and why is there such a massive range? Why is there nothing about other substances in the blood which are from medical evidence that is required to trigger a fatal response with low levels of fentanyl?

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You said milligrams. You're changing the goalposts not me.

And again, where are those values from and why is there such a massive range? Why is there nothing about other substances in the blood which are from medical evidence that is required to trigger a fatal response with low levels of fentanyl?

Again with the lying. How is this allowed?

I've never said milligram and I've consistently said micrograms.

OMM 000 wrote:

microgram per litre and nanogram per millilitre are the same thing.

OMM 000 wrote:

The paper I linked to is using micrograms per litre

OMM 000 wrote:

Micrograms per litre are the same as nanograms per millilitre.

OMM 000 wrote:

micrograms per litre.

OMM 000 wrote:

As you can see microgram per litre

OMM 000 wrote:

Here's two websites which convert microgram per litre to nanogram per millilitre

And where are the values from? I've repeated stated they're from a paper I linked to.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

citing a fatal dose as 2mg is meaningless. the LD50 for fentanyl is 2.91mg/kg in rats, an oral LD50 of 18mg/kg in rats and 368mg/kg in mice. The LD50 for humans is unknown.

Well it's about time we got some humans, put them in a lab and tested them to determine the LD50. :pac::pac::pac:

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Well it's about time we got some humans, put them in a lab and tested them to determine the LD50. :pac::pac::pac:

I would be happy to suggest some test subjects.

OMM 0000

BattleCorp wrote: »

Well it's about time we got some humans, put them in a lab and tested them to determine the LD50. :pac::pac::pac:

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

BattleCorp

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

My comment was a joke.

LD stands for "Lethal Dose". LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals. The test process involves killing a lot of animals. I was joking about substituting people instead of animals.

Anyway, as has already been established, I've quite a juvenile sense of humour. Carry on.

OMM 0000

BattleCorp wrote: »

My comment was a joke.

LD stands for "Lethal Dose". LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals. The test process involves killing a lot of animals. I was joking about substituting people instead of animals.

Anyway, as has already been established, I've quite a juvenile sense of humour. Carry on.

Ah yeah, I knew you were joking. I know there are some oddballs here but I'm pretty sure no one wants to kill people. Pretty sure...

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

That paper is a tiny test group from 1987.

The coroner's report states that deaths have occurred at 3 ng/ml in the blood but if you look into that it's with other contributing factors, mostly a cocktail of other drugs. 38 ng/ml is stated as the median point where the patient loses consciousness. But not fatally.

That's a lot more modern take with 40 years more research behind it.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

That paper is a tiny test group from 1987.

The coroner's report states that deaths have occurred at 3 ng/ml in the blood but if you look into that it's with other contributing factors, mostly a cocktail of other drugs. 38 ng/ml is stated as the median point where the patient loses consciousness. But not fatally.

That's a lot more modern take with 40 years more research behind it.

More lies.

The paper is from 2012.

The test group in the study were recently deceased.

What's going on? Are you able to tell the truth at all?

xckjoo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

We know the lethal dose for humans.

Google "fentanyl overdose nanogram oxford" and click the second link.

I don't know why but there are a few people here trying to deny science and hoping people will ignore the fact Floyd was likely overdosing or dying when arrested.

This doesn't excuse what the cop did and in fact makes it worse.

Everyone's Google results will be different. What's the paper ref?

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

More lies.

The paper is from 2012.

The test group in the study were recently deceased.

What's going on? Are you able to tell the truth at all?

1987. Author EM Pare.

Or I'm looking at a different one.

Retr0gamer

Ok was looking at the wrong one but also looking at other papers.

Don't know where that value of the level of 11 ng/ml would kill 95% of people. It's not in there or is it because it's more than the levels found in 95% of the already dead people in the test?

Also if you read the paper it mentions that in nearly all cars there is a cocktail of drugs involved.

OMM 0000

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Don't know where that value of the level of 11 ng/ml would kill 95% of people.

As stated to you a few times, page 186.

You're either trolling or have some problems so I'm adding you to my ignore list now.

OMM 0000

xckjoo wrote: »

Everyone's Google results will be different. What's the paper ref?

doi:10.1093/jat/bks005

Yellow_Fern

I think if you are trying to establish the lethality and you only look at the, deceased you will overestimate lethality, although not by a huge amount.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

doi:10.1093/jat/bks005

where does it state what the LD50 for fentanyl in humans is?

Retr0gamer

OMM 0000 wrote: »

doi:10.1093/jat/bks005

Finally getting to the bottom of this.

First the 95% of people dying from 11 ng/ml claim.

The table you took a picture of is blood concentration of fentanyl after postmortems.

There are no studies of people that didn't die. It's like saying 95% of fatal shootings are people getting shot in the chest therefore 95% of people shot in the chest die. Logical fallacy.

Also if you read the paper it clearly states that the affects of other drugs in combination with fentanyl contribute to death in the majority of cases and there's very few deaths that can be attributed to Fentanyl alone.

And to top it all the paper concludes that Fentanyl concentrations in the blood can not be used to diagnose a cause of death due to Fentanyl and that if it is suspected there needs to be a medical history and toxicology review to determine if it really is the contributing factor.

You're just cherrypicking. There is nowhere a lethal concentration in blood is hinted at and it specifically says that it can't be used alone to diagnose a cause of death. In some cases the level of Fentanyl is less than the Limit of Detection and in others its way higher than 11 ng/ml.

Yellow_Fern

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Finally getting to the bottom of this.

First the 95% of people dying from 11 ng/ml claim.

The table you took a picture of is blood concentration of fentanyl after postmortems.

There are no studies of people that didn't die. It's like saying 95% of fatal shootings are people getting shot in the chest therefore 95% of people shot in the chest die. Logical fallacy.

Also if you read the paper it clearly states that the affects of other drugs in combination with fentanyl contribute to death in the majority of cases and there's very few deaths that can be attributed to Fentanyl alone.

And to top it all the paper concludes that Fentanyl concentrations in the blood can not be used to diagnose a cause of death due to Fentanyl and that if it is suspected there needs to be a medical history and toxicology review to determine if it really is the contributing factor.

You're just cherrypicking. There is nowhere a lethal concentration in blood is hinted at and it specifically says that it can't be used alone to diagnose a cause of death. In some cases the level of Fentanyl is less than the Limit of Detection and in others its way higher than 11 ng/ml.

I wouldn't use the term logical fallacy. The problem with the analogy is that a man with a chest gunshot is a nominal type of data. Fentanyl doses in the body is continuous data, if 11 ng/ml of fentanyl is safe you'd see a very different distribution in the rest of the dataset and you'd don't. So assuming the sample of deceased ODs is high quality, OMM 0000 is right that GD had a highly dangerous dose. He also had 19 ng/mL of methamphetamine. He also had covid, he smoked, and he required surgery for a stent for his blocked arteries. Walking time bomb.


George Floyd said himself that he overdosed and some of the police there suspected an overdose during the arrest.

Retr0gamer

But that's totally not the conclusion you can draw from it. It is a logical fallacy. You need a control group, basically to see how much someone can have in their body and not die from it. And considering 10-20 ng/ml gives an anaesthetic effect then levels higher than 11 ng/ml in the blood wouldn't exactly be considered fatal.

It's an amateur mistake someone with no experience of medical or scientific experimental process would make.

In fact the actual paper goes out of its way to state this, that fentanyl presence in the blood can't be used to diagnose the lethality of the dose because of two reasons, the wildly varying levels seen in the blood and that contributions from other drugs and health have to be taken into account.

The coroners report pretty much states this with stipulation that 38 ng/mL would be required to lose consciousness and medical experts have for the majority conclusively decided that George Flyod was not a dead man walking like some apologists would like to believe. Of course you can find anyone to state otherwise but it's very telling that the defense went with a retired expert with nothing really to lose from stating the contrary.

Looking at other studies 11 ng/ml of amphetamine is on the very low side to have an effect with fentanyl, it's needs to be in the 200+ ng/ml range from initial studies (which aren't conclusive either).

Yellow_Fern

Retr0gamer wrote: »

But that's totally not the conclusion you can draw from it. It is a logical fallacy. You need a control group, basically to see how much someone can have in their body and not die from it. And considering 10-20 ng/ml gives an anaesthetic effect then levels higher than 11 ng/ml in the blood wouldn't exactly be considered fatal.

It's an amateur mistake someone with no experience of medical or scientific experimental process would make.

In fact the actual paper goes out of its way to state this, that fentanyl presence in the blood can't be used to diagnose the lethality of the dose because of two reasons, the wildly varying levels seen in the blood and that contributions from other drugs and health have to be taken into account.

The coroners report pretty much states this with stipulation that 38 ng/mL would be required to lose consciousness and medical experts have for the majority conclusively decided that George Floyd was a dead man walking like some apologists would like to believe. Of course you can find anyone to state otherwise but it's very telling that the defense went with a retired expert with nothing really to lose from stating the contrary.

Odd that you claim it was obvious but you only mentioned it after I raised it. BTW its a sampling mistake, not a 'medical' or 'scientific mistake'.

The autopsy was written before the case became controversial and the pathologist Dr. Baker (the only expert to examine Floyd's body) did not agree with the prosecution's argument that he was choked to death. Dr. Baker said in court documents “ the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”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,”

It is mad how people who agree with the pathologist are 'apologists', racists and Russian operatives. Linguistically speaking it is people who defend the conviction who are the apologists.

ohnonotgmail

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Odd that you claim it was obvious but you only mentioned it after I raised it. BTW its a sampling mistake, not a 'medical' or 'scientific mistake'.

The autopsy was written before the case became controversial and the pathologist Dr. Baker (the only expert to examine Floyd's body) did not agree with the prosecution's argument that he was choked to death. Dr. Baker said in court documents “ the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”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,”

but we no there were other contributing factors. quite significant contributing factors.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is mad how people who agree with the pathologist are 'apologists', racists and Russian operatives. Linguistically speaking it is people who defend the conviction who are the apologists.

what?

Retr0gamer

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Odd that you claim it was obvious but you only mentioned it after I raised it. BTW its a sampling mistake, not a 'medical' or 'scientific mistake'.

Because it is obvious to a scientist. You need a control group before you can make these claims. It's also not a mistake. The paper is not about establishing a lethal concentration of fentanyl in the blood but unfortunately it's being skewed by people with no understanding of the scientific process to back up their claims but stating as fact what the study quite clearly doesn't prove or even set out to prove of quantify.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The autopsy was written before the case became controversial and the pathologist Dr. Baker (the only expert to examine Floyd's body) did not agree with the prosecution's argument that he was choked to death. Dr. Baker said in court documents “ the amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s blood was “pretty high” and could be “a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”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,”

They had to say that because it's true. People have died with similar or less fentanyl in their system. To say otherwise would be perjury. And as stated there were other contributing factors that are quite clearly the actual cause of death rather than the very low possibility of death due to a high but rarely fatal level of fentanyl in the system.

Mellor

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Is this a joke?

You said this:

You were trying to imply I've mixed up the units.

But it's you who've mixed them up.

The paper I linked to is using micrograms per litre, which is the same as nanograms per millilitre.

Go back and read the quotes.
I referenced anaesthetic level vrs the level Floyd had.
You claimed I was mixing up dose and blood level.
I wasn’t, and I proved that by pointed that out that they are different units. I’m not sure how you can deny that. Administered doses are in mg, blood levels are in ng/ml. They are not related.
End of. You were wrong.

At no point did I mention the report levels vrs anything. As I said the link you provide was dead.
You’ve since tried to make a pathetic strawman. Referring to an online paper. It’s irrelevant. I wasn’t talking about the paper, it wasn’t a factor in your BS claim.

To be really clear, you falsely claim I was talking about administered dose.
I pointed dose (mg) and blood level (ng/ml) are different units.
You strawman do this to being ng/ml and ug/L are the same.
This just really basic goalpost moving. Your claim was about my post, not the report.

You’ve dodged the question about your BS claims regarding bruising and choking etc

Mellor

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think there is another common paper that cites 2mg of fentanyl as a fatal dose but I understand a fatal dose is a dose that kills everyone, not 95 in 100 addicts, really everyone. Very different concepts right?

Yes. That’s often quoted. That’s an administered dose. Equal to 2million ng

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Fentanyl doses in the body is continuous data, if 11 ng/ml of fentanyl is safe you'd see a very different distribution in the rest of the dataset and you'd don't. So assuming the sample of deceased ODs is high quality, OMM 0000 is right that GD had a highly dangerous dose..

This post highlights the issues with the claims.

11ng/ml is a high level. Certainly a high level to have in your system when your popping out to the shops. Nobody has disputed that. In unquantified terms, it’s high.
The issue is the claim that it’s a 3x fatal level. And that 95% of people die at that blood. Those are quantified terms. Those claims are not backed up.

To claim its lethal 95% of the time. You have to take a sample of people on fentanyl at that dose, not a sample of people who died. Or at least a sample of habitual addicts and establish the kinds of levels they self dose to, and survive.
A report on deaths does not do that. You can’t take a study on lung cancer deaths, and claims it’s fatal 100% of the time because everyone in the study died. Surely that’s obvious?

It’s already been pointed out in the thread that 10-20ng/ml is a range used for anaesthesia. Which categorically proves that 4ng/ml is not considered fatal. So that claim is quashed.
And yes, you absolutely will find people with 10-20ng/ml who have died. The vast majority of the time these and polynarcotic deaths. Heroin laced with fentanyl for example. Citing the fentanyl only level as fatal us just silly. The study I referenced featured fentanyl up to 45ng/ml with morphine (heroin metabolite) up to 400ng/ml.
And yes I’m aware that Floyd had low levels of amphetamine in his system. Which I imagine is not the same as a cocktail of other opiates you see in the study.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Fowler's past autopsy's being looked into..

"Maryland officials will conduct an independent review of reports of deaths in police custody during the tenure of retired chief medical examiner Dr. David Fowler, representatives from the offices of the governor and attorney general confirmed to NPR on Saturday."

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/24/990536193/maryland-to-probe-cases-handled-by-ex-medical-examiner-who-testified-in-chauvin-

Overheal

The DOJ is now going after Chauvin over a 2017 incident when he struck a child with a flashlight for being beligerrent. He then proceeded to put his neck on the kids neck for close to the same time as george floyd before moving his knee to he upper back. https://abcnews.go.com/US/chauvins-conviction-floyd-murder-doj-weighs-charging-2017/story?id=77254006

According to Frank's account of the incident, Chauvin and another Minneapolis police officer were dispatched to a home where a woman claimed she had been attacked by her 14-year-old son and young daughter.

After officers entered the home and spoke to the woman, they ordered the son to lie on the ground, but he refused. Within seconds, Chauvin hit the teenager with his flashlight, grabbed the teenager's throat, hit him again with the flashlight, and then "applied a neck restraint, causing the child to lose consciousness and go to the ground," according to Frank's account of the videos, detailed in a filing seeking permission to raise the incident during trial.

"Chauvin and [the other officer] placed [the teenager] in the prone position and handcuffed him behind his back while the teenager's mother pleaded with them not to kill her son and told her son to stop resisting," Frank wrote, noting that at one point the teenager's ear began bleeding. "About a minute after going to the ground, the child began repeatedly telling the officers that he could not breathe, and his mother told Chauvin to take his knee off her son."

About eight minutes in, Chauvin moved his knee to the teenager's upper back and left it there for nine more minutes, according to Frank.

Eventually, Chauvin told the teenager he was under arrest for domestic assault and obstruction with force. The two officers then helped the teenager to an ambulance, which took him to a hospital to receive stitches, Frank wrote.

Knowledge of the incident was not admissible evidence during his murder trial.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

The DOJ is now going after Chauvin over a 2017 incident when he struck a child with a flashlight for being beligerrent. He then proceeded to put his neck on the kids neck for close to the same time as george floyd before moving his knee to he upper back.

I'm sure the question will be asked 'why didn't that kid die'?

Tell me how

One other outcome of the Chauvin case is a witness who testified that he was not the reason Floyd died spent I think 10 years as a medical examiner in Baltimore and the cases in which he was involved in identifying the cause of death are going to be looked at to ensure that there were no cases which it might be considered that he made the wrong call.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm sure the question will be asked 'why didn't that kid die'?

Upon reading the article, the question being asked, rather, is why in fact the state prosecutors office didn't bring a case against the incident. To flip that back to 'why didn't that kid die' the DOJ's apparent question is 'would the incident have only been prosecuted if he had?'

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Upon reading the article, the question being asked, rather, is why in fact the state prosecutors office didn't bring a case against the incident. To flip that back to 'why didn't that kid die' the DOJ's apparent question is 'would the incident have only been prosecuted if he had?'

I'll reserve judgement until I see the video.

Until then we can't say if what Chauvin did was over the top but I'm not doubting that it's possible.

The 14yo was resisting if that article is to be believed. According to it his mother pleaded with him to stop resisting.

With the kid resisting, it's possible that it was necessary to restrain the kid so maybe no prosecution was warranted. Like I said, I don't know the details because I haven't seen the video.

paw patrol

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Fowler's past autopsy's being looked into..

"Maryland officials will conduct an independent review of reports of deaths in police custody during the tenure of retired chief medical examiner Dr. David Fowler, representatives from the offices of the governor and attorney general confirmed to NPR on Saturday."

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/24/990536193/maryland-to-probe-cases-handled-by-ex-medical-examiner-who-testified-in-chauvin-

cos that seems reasonable :eek: and not troubling at all...
This will only serve to scare off expert witnesses from testifying in future.
At least for his sake he is retired..

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

cos that seems reasonable :eek: and not troubling at all...
This will only serve to scare off expert witnesses from testifying in future.
At least for his sake he is retired..

It will tend to happen if there's major questions over a report. It's not unusual.

Yellow_Fern

Mellor wrote: »

11ng/ml is a high level. Certainly a high level to have in your system when your popping out to the shops. Nobody has disputed that. In unquantified terms, it’s high.
The issue is the claim that it’s a 3x fatal level. And that 95% of people die at that blood. Those are quantified terms. Those claims are not backed up.

Many US fact checker website did dispute that.The bias in the case is such that the media will brush aside pharmacology for the sake of a narrative. It isn't untrue that that the dose could kill three people.

Mellor wrote: »

Yes. That’s often quoted. That’s an administered dose. Equal to 2million ng
To claim its lethal 95% of the time. You have to take a sample of people on fentanyl at that dose, not a sample of people who died. Or at least a sample of habitual addicts and establish the kinds of levels they self dose to, and survive.
A report on deaths does not do that. You can’t take a study on lung cancer deaths, and claims it’s fatal 100% of the time because everyone in the study died. Surely that’s obvious?

You are equating present absence data (lung cancer present) with continuous data (dosage). Totally different kettle of fish.

Very much recommend Brett Weinstein's thoughts on why it is a bad conviction on his podcast 'dark horse' and on Joe Rogan

Mellor

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Many US fact checker website did dispute that.The bias in vide the case is such that the media will brush aside pharmacology for the sake of a narrative. It isn't untrue that that the dose could kill three people.

It was disputed that it was fatal or 3x fatal.
Saying it’s “high” is meaningless. It’s unqualified.

Can you provide any evidence that 3.7ng/ml is considered a fatal dose? Or even it not considered to be the statistical fatal dose. Any evidence of it killing people.
I’m not a opiate expert (or a scientific junkie) So I can only go on statistical evidence here. And I haven’t seen anything of any credibility that backs that claim up.

FWIW I provided evidence that c.10ng/ml is in the law analgesic range.
The study provided by the previous poster in no way backed it up. It’s actually hilarious that he thought it did. Clearly he didn’t read it, or understand it.

And, obviously it goes without saying. Somebody who ODs with 3ng/ml of fentanyl, alongside an amount of heroin is not evidence of a fatal level of fentanyl alone.

You are equating present absence data (lung cancer present) with continuous data (dosage). Totally different kettle of fish.

I’m aware they are different types of data. (It presence rather than absence btw. Binary data).
But the type of data is not relevant. The point was about the data sample not the data type.
Ie you can’t make a claim about the general population when the sample select is not a general sample.
The study in question was people who died.

Very much recommend Brett Weinstein's thoughts on why it is a bad conviction on his podcast 'dark horse' and on Joe Rogan

I like Brett, he’s a funny guy. I’ll give it a listen.
But I’m not going to expect a reasonable thought out arguement tbh. He’s not exactly a paragon of enlightenment and reasoning.

paw patrol wrote: »

cos that seems reasonable :eek: and not troubling at all...
This will only serve to scare off expert witnesses from testifying in future.
At least for his sake he is retired..

Why would it scare off expert witnesses? It has nothing to do with being a witness.

ohnonotgmail

paw patrol wrote: »

cos that seems reasonable :eek: and not troubling at all...
This will only serve to scare off expert witnesses from testifying in future.
At least for his sake he is retired..

should the evidence given by paid expert witnesses not be subject to scrutiny?

paw patrol

Deleted User wrote: »

It will tend to happen if there's major questions over a report. It's not unusual.

does it, can you point me to where a witness gave evidnence and then they were back over every piece of work they did in the past 20 years or so ( I know it's 17 but 20 is nice and round)

Mellor wrote: »

Why would it scare off expert witnesses? It has nothing to do with being a witness.

cos they didn't like what he said at a trial now "re-examining" all his previous work. Seems legit doesn't it

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

should the evidence given by paid expert witnesses not be subject to scrutiny?

I'm not sure I said that but re examining his entire back catalog of 17 year cos of evidence he gave at a trial

We know what's going on here.

ohnonotgmail

paw patrol wrote: »

does it, can you point me to where a witness gave evidnence and then they were back over every piece of work they did in the past 20 years or so ( I know it's 17 but 20 is nice and round)




cos they didn't like what he said at a trial now "re-examining" all his previous work. Seems legit doesn't it



I'm not sure I said that but re examining his entire back catalog of 17 year cos of evidence he gave at a trial

We know what's going on here.

He gave flawed evidence and people are now wondering if he made similar serious mistakes in previous evidence? Is that what you mean? You can be sure that any defence attorney that had a client convicted on his evidence will start looking at that evidence again.

Mellor

paw patrol wrote: »

cos they didn't like what he said at a trial now "re-examining" all his previous work. Seems legit doesn't it

I've guessing you aren't aware of the background here. He was already under investigation prior to the trial due to a case back in 2018. He's accused of helping cover up a death in police custody.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116890487&postcount=1283

Basically, a teenager was restrained by 5 men in a prone position. The teenager got into breathing difficulty, and died. Sounds familiar right. He wasn't high on opiates. Dr Fowler's autopsy said it was a heart attack. That finding is under review and was so prior to the Floyd case.

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

does it, can you point me to where a witness gave evidnence and then they were back over every piece of work they did in the past 20 years or so ( I know it's 17 but 20 is nice and round)




cos they didn't like what he said at a trial now "re-examining" all his previous work. Seems legit doesn't it



I'm not sure I said that but re examining his entire back catalog of 17 year cos of evidence he gave at a trial

We know what's going on here.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/trouble-with-experts-1.1306405?mode=amp
Here's an exact case where they've reexamined all cases where they acted as a medical expert. Imagine there's plenty of US specific ones too but it does happen. If they're unreliable in one case, that calls previous work into question.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Mellor wrote: »

I've guessing you aren't aware of the background here. He was already under investigation prior to the trial due to a case back in 2018. He's accused of helping cover up a death in police custody.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116890487&postcount=1283

Basically, a teenager was restrained by 5 men in a prone position. The teenager got into breathing difficulty, and died. Sounds familiar right. He wasn't high on opiates. Dr Fowler's autopsy said it was a heart attack. That finding is under review and was so prior to the Floyd case.

The strange thing about that case, it took the family 4 months to be given the results of the autopsy.. it was because the family had fought for the release of it.

paw patrol

Mellor wrote: »

I've guessing you aren't aware of the background here. He was already under investigation prior to the trial due to a case back in 2018. He's accused of helping cover up a death in police custody.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116890487&postcount=1283

Basically, a teenager was restrained by 5 men in a prone position. The teenager got into breathing difficulty, and died. Sounds familiar right. He wasn't high on opiates. Dr Fowler's autopsy said it was a heart attack. That finding is under review and was so prior to the Floyd case.

you guessed right. that is interesting.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He gave flawed evidence and people are now wondering if he made similar serious mistakes in previous evidence? Is that what you mean? You can be sure that any defence attorney that had a client convicted on his evidence will start looking at that evidence again.

flawed evidence. expert evidence is only an opinion.
that's why we see nearly all the time two experts have different views.

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/trouble-with-experts-1.1306405?mode=amp
Here's an exact case where they've reexamined all cases where they acted as a medical expert. Imagine there's plenty of US specific ones too but it does happen. If they're unreliable in one case, that calls previous work into question.

fair enough. 2004 UK.


it's a witch-hunt for political gain.
we all know it's cos he gave "wrong" evidence. Just cos you agree with it doesn't make it right.

If they didn't like his work they'd have got him on previous - after 17 years they didn't need to wait for this trial
But here we are.

Mellor

paw patrol wrote: »

you guessed right. that is interesting.

TBH I only knew about it as it was mentioned in thread. Presumably went under the radar at the time.

paw patrol

paw patrol wrote: »

you guessed right. that is interesting.


flawed evidence. expert evidence is only an opinion.
that's why we see nearly all the time two experts have different views.



fair enough. 2004 UK.


it's a witch-hunt for political gain.
we all know it's cos he gave "wrong" evidence. Just cos you agree with it doesn't make it right.

If they didn't like his work they'd have got him on previous - after 17 years they didn't need to wait for this trial
But here we are.

If an expert witness is actively misleading or unreliable to a substantial extent, it calls their previous work into question. It makes entire sense to review their previous work since it's likely that new cases and appeals will arise out of the issues from this case. Even if they conclude his conclusions were all correct, they've done due diligence.