babynoz said:

tracyface said:

I am the exact same height that Prince was... 63 inches and I am telling you for real, that 112 on his male frame was too dang thin! If you objectively look at pics of his last few concert and appearances,He is uncomfortbly thin His shoulder blades actually show through his shirt at his last concert... he has lost weight, his coloring is off and he's lost elastisity in his skin. To me this red flags dehydration, not eating right, possibly anemia. And this is just based on a brief visual of him during the past year. I would put money down that for at least 3 if not 6 months, he wasnt eating or drinking enough, that to me is obvious. The rest is speculation.

Thank you.


You know that and so do I, but apparently our eyeballs are lying to us because of what some arbitrary chart says.

112 lbs on the chart is about as low as he could go and be within range. He easily weighed about 20 lbs more in the past couple of years before he died and was more toned. I remember in the mid 90's, a couple of years before he married Mayte, that he was very thin also. I don't know if he was taking too much pain meds at that time or was it simply stress that caused him to lose weight. Unless someone who knows speaks up, we will never know for sure what happened.

fortuneandserendipity said:

The death certificate is a BIG LIE. Well done Minnesota.

.

Care to elaborate on this? What is your theory?

~G

IF there is a trial related to Prince's death then all of the medical information will come out. It would be hard to prosecute a MD without making this information (including photos) public.

Giovanni777 said:

How long has this investigation been going? 9 weeks?

sonshine said:

Giovanni777 said:

.

Care to elaborate on this? What is your theory?

~G

A big lie? I'd also like to know why someone would say that.

Hello Sonshine, "lie" may be a bit harsh but certainly there is a lot of information missing. Ill give it a whirl from what I have read.

1. As it relates to Postmortem fentanyl toxicity and determining the cause of death, toxicology results are only one datum point among several that are considered. In relation to this point, one would want to know if it was adminsitered intravenously, transdermal, epidural or inhaled. Transdermal seems to be the prescribed route for treatment of chronic pain. Fentanyl rapidly diffuses throught the epidermis but is delayed by the dermis which would explain a slow onset and prolonged effects whic contnues even after the removal of a patch.He could have very well used too many patches in a very short period of time and as a result , respiratory failure. It seems that an antemortem dose cannot be predicted based on postmortem concentration but tissue samples would be able to tell you a lot more.None of this information is given.

2. In general, acute intoxication deaths are chemical injuries and certified as "accidents" when the death is inadvertent ond/or there is evidence of substance abuse. It could have been from improper dosing, but it could also be from prolonged self administered substance abuse. We need more information that she won't release.

3. There are (3) conditions that must be met in order to conclude that death was caused by acute intoxication: (a)The toxicology results must be within the range typically encountered in such fatalities, (b)the history and circumstances must be consistent with a fatal intoxication, (c) the autopsy must fail to disclose a disease or physical injury that has an extent or severity inconsistent with continued life. The importance of this is that the( ME) is saying that he didn't have Cancer, AIDS or chronic pain that would cause end of life. This was interesting to me.

4. Ultimately, the determination of the cause and manner of death in a suspected drug intoxication death is based on a careful review of the entire case including (a) circumstances, (b)medical history, (c)autopsy findings, and (d)toxicology results. Here is another point: She (M.E) did not tell us whether or not the concentration in his blood , urine, etc., was of a magnitutde higher that what is typically observed in that "general" toxicology report. This is another point of contention that could favor suicide over an accident.The sheriff said it wasn't consistent with suicide if I'm not mistaken. He said this before the toxicology report was even in or was it after? .How did he know this? We ( the public) are missing 3 of the 4 ( even though we have partial toxicology results).

5. It is quite possible that the levels of fentanyl may have caused toxicity but by no menas does that exclude any other drug that may have been in his system in conjunction with Fentanyl. I think it is rare to find a patient who goes from taking absolutely no drugs at all to taking fentanyl prescibed by a doctor . Remember, even his lawyer (Londell McMillan) stated " he may have used medication but was not using it recreationally" . He (his lawyer) also stated this: People use medication. The question is are you on meds in a dangerous way". There was a history. Whether it is protocol to release the entire report or not in Minnesota is a different story all together. From my understanding this state does not do that. I think this is why most of us think there are too many things missing. Some may call it a lie, some a cover-up. It's more of a loophole one can choose to exercise if it's your call. This applies to the (ME) and next of kin.

You don't just die 'accidentally' from fentanyl.

Menes said:

sonshine said:

Giovanni777 said: A big lie? I'd also like to know why someone would say that.

Hello Sonshine, "lie" may be a bit harsh but certainly there is a lot of information missing. Ill give it a whirl from what I have read.

1. As it relates to Postmortem fentanyl toxicity and determining the cause of death, toxicology results are only one datum point among several that are considered. In relation to this point, one would want to know if it was adminsitered intravenously, transdermal, epidural or inhaled. Transdermal seems to be the prescribed route for treatment of chronic pain. Fentanyl rapidly diffuses throught the epidermis but is delayed by the dermis which would explain a slow onset and prolonged effects whic contnues even after the removal of a patch.He could have very well used too many patches in a very short period of time and as a result , respiratory failure. It seems that an antemortem dose cannot be predicted based on postmortem concentration but tissue samples would be able to tell you a lot more.None of this information is given.

2. In general, acute intoxication deaths are chemical injuries and certified as "accidents" when the death is inadvertent ond/or there is evidence of substance abuse. It could have been from improper dosing, but it could also be from prolonged self administered substance abuse. We need more information that she won't release.

3. There are (3) conditions that must be met in order to conclude that death was caused by acute intoxication: (a)The toxicology results must be within the range typically encountered in such fatalities, (b)the history and circumstances must be consistent with a fatal intoxication, (c) the autopsy must fail to disclose a disease or physical injury that has an extent or severity inconsistent with continued life. The importance of this is that the( ME) is saying that he didn't have Cancer, AIDS or chronic pain that would cause end of life. This was interesting to me.

4. Ultimately, the determination of the cause and manner of death in a suspected drug intoxication death is based on a careful review of the entire case including (a) circumstances, (b)medical history, (c)autopsy findings, and (d)toxicology results. Here is another point: She (M.E) did not tell us whether or not the concentration in his blood , urine, etc., was of a magnitutde higher that what is typically observed in that "general" toxicology report. This is another point of contention that could favor suicide over an accident.The sheriff said it wasn't consistent with suicide if I'm not mistaken. He said this before the toxicology report was even in or was it after? .How did he know this? We ( the public) are missing 3 of the 4 ( even though we have partial toxicology results).

5. It is quite possible that the levels of fentanyl may have caused toxicity but by no menas does that exclude any other drug that may have been in his system in conjunction with Fentanyl. I think it is rare to find a patient who goes from taking absolutely no drugs at all to taking fentanyl prescibed by a doctor . Remember, even his lawyer (Londell McMillan) stated " he may have used medication but was not using it recreationally" . He (his lawyer) also stated this: People use medication. The question is are you on meds in a dangerous way". There was a history. Whether it is protocol to release the entire report or not in Minnesota is a different story all together. From my understanding this state does not do that. I think this is why most of us think there are too many things missing. Some may call it a lie, some a cover-up. It's more of a loophole one can choose to exercise if it's your call. This applies to the (ME) and next of kin.

Great analysis.

It's like this. If fentanyl was the only substance in his body to a significant degree, then this must mean one of three possibilities.

Either a) his body was covered in patches, not just one or a couple (NOT accidental)

or b) he emptied contents of one or more patches and swallowed them whole (NOT accidental)

or c) he emptied contents of one or more patches and shot them up his arm (NOT accidental)

Failing all of the above, there was some contraindication between 'non-lethal' amounts of fentanyl in his body and other substances 2 x rx medication- incidentally not mentioned on the death certificate.

So either way you look at it, clearly the authorities were not telling the truth.

[Edited 7/20/16 11:10am]

Just to be clear, fentanyl is far from lethal in the form of a prescription dose

If it wasn't a prescription then the supplier should be prosecuted.

If it was a prescription then it was over-prescribed and the doctor concerned should be prosecuted.

[Edited 7/20/16 11:06am]

fortuneandserendipity said:

It's like this. If fentanyl was the only substance in his body to a significant degree, then this must mean one of three possibilities.

Either a) his body was covered in patches, not just one or a couple (NOT accidental)

or b) he emptied contents of one or more patches and swallowed them whole (NOT accidental)

or c) he emptied contents of one or more patches and shot them up his arm (NOT accidental)

Failing all of the above, there was some contraindication between 'non-lethal' amounts of fentanyl in his body and other substances 2 x rx medication- incidentally not mentioned on the death certificate.

So either way you look at it, clearly the authorities were not telling the truth.

[Edited 7/20/16 11:10am]

We certainly can agree that " if fentanyl was the only substance in his body to a significant degree, then this must mean one of three possibilities". This is what I have read regarding fentanyl concentrations in determining cause of death. I will address each of your points.

A. Transdermal delivery has slow and prolonged effects which may continue even after the removal of an unspent patch. His body did not have to be covered with patches in order to determine fentanyl toxicity, or, to induce respiratory failure. Take one off, put another one on. He has an addictive personality. Anything goes.

B. Though there are more and more cases of abuse and accidents related to fentanyl patches, using fentanyl patches (in any form) to commmit suicide ,is rare.

C. Same as B.

As to your point regarding "contraindications between "non lethal amounts of fentanyl in his body and other substances", according to 92 (ME) postmortem toxicology analysis, in which fentanyl was detected, here are the results.

Results

1. The manner of death included (40) accidents.

2. (36) were natural.

3. (8) were suicides.

4. (5) were therapeutic complications.

5. (3) were undetermned deaths.

6. (32) of (37) involved substance abuse.

7. (95%) of the 37 involving fentanyl were multi-drugs intoxication.

1a. The only way for the medical examiner to conclude that the three possibilities you have presented is a direct result of multi-drug intoxication or a mean concentration of fentanyl that is unusally high , is thru blood, urine and tissue samples. We can agree that she has not released crititcal pieces of information. However, I cannot be absolute in determining if it amounts to "not telling the truth". Im not sure any of us can at this juncture.

2b. In addition to blood ,urine and tissue samples; specimen site, placement of the patches, BMI, length of patch use, history of abuse and state of decomposition are also determining factors in the case of fentanyl toxicity. There is no information available ( or has been made public) for these additional factors.

3c. I'm not sure how we conclude that the authorities were not telling the truth based on information that has not been given. Now, I do have to say that the Sheriff wreaked of high grade manure when he said it "wasn't consistent with suicide" before there was even a hint of a medical examiner report. He was way out of his league for saying that at such an early stage of the investigation. Furthermore, he should be quarantined from making any additional statements concerning this. I think we can agree that he (P) may not have started taking fentanyl decade(s) ago upon the onset of hip pain/surgery. This was a gradual build up that lead to getting fentanyl/ opiate derivatives, prescribed or not.

The Narcan shot sent him into full blown withdrawl and he gained access to a dose of Fentanyl and it killed him.

People doctors give samples in America and those samples are not tracible if they are of a certain age.

Menes said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

It's like this. If fentanyl was the only substance in his body to a significant degree, then this must mean one of three possibilities.

Either a) his body was covered in patches, not just one or a couple (NOT accidental)

or b) he emptied contents of one or more patches and swallowed them whole (NOT accidental)

or c) he emptied contents of one or more patches and shot them up his arm (NOT accidental)

Failing all of the above, there was some contraindication between 'non-lethal' amounts of fentanyl in his body and other substances 2 x rx medication- incidentally not mentioned on the death certificate.

So either way you look at it, clearly the authorities were not telling the truth.

[Edited 7/20/16 11:10am]

We certainly can agree that " if fentanyl was the only substance in his body to a significant degree, then this must mean one of three possibilities". This is what I have read regarding fentanyl concentrations in determining cause of death. I will address each of your points.

A. Transdermal delivery has slow and prolonged effects which may continue even after the removal of an unspent patch. His body did not have to be covered with patches in order to determine fentanyl toxicity, or, to induce respiratory failure. Take one off, put another one on. He has an addictive personality. Anything goes.

B. Though there are more and more cases of abuse and accidents related to fentanyl patches, using fentanyl patches (in any form) to commmit suicide ,is rare.

C. Same as B.

As to your point regarding "contraindications between "non lethal amounts of fentanyl in his body and other substances", according to 92 (ME) postmortem toxicology analysis, in which fentanyl was detected, here are the results.

Results

1. The manner of death included (40) accidents.

2. (36) were natural.

3. (8) were suicides.

4. (5) were therapeutic complications.

5. (3) were undetermned deaths.

6. (32) of (37) involved substance abuse.

7. (95%) of the 37 involving fentanyl were multi-drugs intoxication.

1a. The only way for the medical examiner to conclude that the three possibilities you have presented is a direct result of multi-drug intoxication or a mean concentration of fentanyl that is unusally high , is thru blood, urine and tissue samples. We can agree that she has not released crititcal pieces of information. However, I cannot be absolute in determining if it amounts to "not telling the truth". Im not sure any of us can at this juncture.

2b. In addition to blood ,urine and tissue samples; specimen site, placement of the patches, BMI, length of patch use, history of abuse and state of decomposition are also determining factors in the case of fentanyl toxicity. There is no information available ( or has been made public) for these additional factors.

3c. I'm not sure how we conclude that the authorities were not telling the truth based on information that has not been given. Now, I do have to say that the Sheriff wreaked of high grade manure when he said it "wasn't consistent with suicide" before there was even a hint of a medical examiner report. He was way out of his league for saying that at such an early stage of the investigation. Furthermore, he should be quarantined from making any additional statements concerning this. I think we can agree that he (P) may not have started taking fentanyl decade(s) ago upon the onset of hip pain/surgery. This was a gradual build up that lead to getting fentanyl/ opiate derivatives, prescribed or not.

I view a half truth as the same as an outright lie, albeit more deceptive. They only had to conclude based on the amount of fentanyl in his blood that it was definitely fentanyl and only that. And based on what dr drew said, it would take a ridiculous amount of self-administered fentanyl because the prescribed amounts are so miniscule. Therefore it raises the spectre of suicide as opposed to accident.

Agreed on what the sheriff insinuated. I remember watching the press conference live and thinking, why would he presume that?

muleFunk said:

The Narcan shot sent him into full blown withdrawl and he gained access to a dose of Fentanyl and it killed him.

People doctors give samples in America and those samples are not tracible if they are of a certain age.

I was under the impression the narcan shot would increase the toxicity threshold for opiates/opioids, not lower it?

Doctors give Fentanyl samples to patients? Honest to God? Forgive me since I do not have firsthand knowledge of addiction, but how many times stronger than morphine and a sample is given in the office? We are speculating because we do not have the autopsy report. Provide that document and many of our questions will be answered.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Menes said:

We certainly can agree that " if fentanyl was the only substance in his body to a significant degree, then this must mean one of three possibilities". This is what I have read regarding fentanyl concentrations in determining cause of death. I will address each of your points.

A. Transdermal delivery has slow and prolonged effects which may continue even after the removal of an unspent patch. His body did not have to be covered with patches in order to determine fentanyl toxicity, or, to induce respiratory failure. Take one off, put another one on. He has an addictive personality. Anything goes.

B. Though there are more and more cases of abuse and accidents related to fentanyl patches, using fentanyl patches (in any form) to commmit suicide ,is rare.

C. Same as B.

As to your point regarding "contraindications between "non lethal amounts of fentanyl in his body and other substances", according to 92 (ME) postmortem toxicology analysis, in which fentanyl was detected, here are the results.

Results

1. The manner of death included (40) accidents.

2. (36) were natural.

3. (8) were suicides.

4. (5) were therapeutic complications.

5. (3) were undetermned deaths.

6. (32) of (37) involved substance abuse.

7. (95%) of the 37 involving fentanyl were multi-drugs intoxication.

1a. The only way for the medical examiner to conclude that the three possibilities you have presented is a direct result of multi-drug intoxication or a mean concentration of fentanyl that is unusally high , is thru blood, urine and tissue samples. We can agree that she has not released crititcal pieces of information. However, I cannot be absolute in determining if it amounts to "not telling the truth". Im not sure any of us can at this juncture.

2b. In addition to blood ,urine and tissue samples; specimen site, placement of the patches, BMI, length of patch use, history of abuse and state of decomposition are also determining factors in the case of fentanyl toxicity. There is no information available ( or has been made public) for these additional factors.

3c. I'm not sure how we conclude that the authorities were not telling the truth based on information that has not been given. Now, I do have to say that the Sheriff wreaked of high grade manure when he said it "wasn't consistent with suicide" before there was even a hint of a medical examiner report. He was way out of his league for saying that at such an early stage of the investigation. Furthermore, he should be quarantined from making any additional statements concerning this. I think we can agree that he (P) may not have started taking fentanyl decade(s) ago upon the onset of hip pain/surgery. This was a gradual build up that lead to getting fentanyl/ opiate derivatives, prescribed or not.

I view a half truth as the same as an outright lie, albeit more deceptive. They only had to conclude based on the amount of fentanyl in his blood that it was definitely fentanyl and only that. And based on what dr drew said, it would take a ridiculous amount of self-administered fentanyl because the prescribed amounts are so miniscule. Therefore it raises the spectre of suicide as opposed to accident.

Agreed on what the sheriff insinuated. I remember watching the press conference live and thinking, why would he presume that?

I agree that a half truth is the same as an outright lie. However, the fact is that the full autopsy report was just not released. It does not mean that it does not exist. If we are following the letter of the law ( in Minnesota), Martha Weaver( spokesperson for the Midwest Medical Examiners Office) stated that "Under Minnesota law, all other medical data is considered private or non-public data". I also read that it takes generally (30) years for the report to be released. That one pager does not even tell you whether it is prescription fentanyl(pure) , street fentanyl, or, a combination of both. It does not have to.

Only the next of kin and Prince's treating physician can read the full report. They are the sources that we should petition the court for a release of the full report. Good luck with that. This is not a crime. This is why I say that we cannot determine if the authorities are covering up/lying about his death. Tyka knows. Now , if you were advising Tyka on this matter ( to release or not release the full report), would you tell her to let the public have the full report? I certainly wouldn't take the risk and screw up future proceeds if there was anything in the report that could damage the brand. The old saying goes " Sometimes , not doing the right thing, is the right thing".

No, I would not, but saying that he died of a terminal illness (and yes, I do believe this is the case) doesn't really say what the exact cause was so does protect privacy, but would probably give many the closure they need. And yeah....as a fan(fam) myself, that is exactly what's needed to allow many to accept and move on. So in conclusion....put it out there that he had a terminal illness. David Bowie was terminal, Patrick Swayze was terminal, Dennis Hopper was terminal, Natalie Cole was terminal, Alan Rickman was terminal, Maurice White was terminal, Lemmy was terminal, Dale Griffin (Mott the Hoople) was terminal....I can go on forever..... I am just trying to point out that terminal illness resulting in death is not something people can't deal with. We may not be happy about it, but it is what it is....we will all die someday. I don't care if others here agree with me or not, but it's what I would say if advising her.

Menes said:

Tyka knows. Now , if you were advising Tyka on this matter ( to release or not release the full report), would you tell her to let the public have the full report?

[Edited 7/21/16 13:09pm]

There needs to be a criminal investigation to establish what really happened.

fortuneandserendipity said:

There needs to be a criminal investigation to establish what really happened.

Well, to that point, there is an account of how he died according to the Medical Examiner's findings.

1. How injury occured: The decedent self-administered fentanyl.

2. Manner: Accident

3. Cause: Fentanyl toxicity

4. Other significant conditions: N/A

5. Homicide, suicide, natural , undertemined, were ruled out as to the manner.

If you are speaking of the criminal investigation/probe that the DEA and the Sheriff are involved in, it is to determine whether a substance was over-prescribed, was received thru illegal means, ( doctor shopping etc.), or obtained thru "street pharmacist" means. The investigation has nothing to do with manner of death.

Below are the statutes /covenants that the (M.E.) office has to abide by. You should find your detailed answers here as it relates to why she/he cannot release information to the public as well as the reasons for performing an autopsy . Hope this helps all who are interested.

390.11 - 2015 Minnesota S...f Statutes

Menes said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

There needs to be a criminal investigation to establish what really happened.

Well, to that point, there is an account of how he died according to the Medical Examiner's findings.

1. How injury occured: The decedent self-administered fentanyl.

2. Manner: Accident

3. Cause: Fentanyl toxicity

4. Other significant conditions: N/A

5. Homicide, suicide, natural , undertemined, were ruled out as to the manner.

If you are speaking of the criminal investigation/probe that the DEA and the Sheriff are involved in, it is to determine whether a substance was over-prescribed, was received thru illegal means, ( doctor shopping etc.), or obtained thru "street pharmacist" means. The investigation has nothing to do with manner of death.

Below are the statutes /covenants that the (M.E.) office has to abide by. You should find your detailed answers here as it relates to why she/he cannot release information to the public as well as the reasons for performing an autopsy . Hope this helps all who are interested.

390.11 - 2015 Minnesota S...f Statutes

.

Exactly.

.

Just knowing the supplier of said medication would reveal a lot, specifically the timeline. If the investigation doesn't go very far, then I'll suspect the reason for that being part-motivated by not wanting people to discern too much.

Menes said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

There needs to be a criminal investigation to establish what really happened.

Well, to that point, there is an account of how he died according to the Medical Examiner's findings.

1. How injury occured: The decedent self-administered fentanyl.

2. Manner: Accident

3. Cause: Fentanyl toxicity

4. Other significant conditions: N/A

5. Homicide, suicide, natural , undertemined, were ruled out as to the manner.

If you are speaking of the criminal investigation/probe that the DEA and the Sheriff are involved in, it is to determine whether a substance was over-prescribed, was received thru illegal means, ( doctor shopping etc.), or obtained thru "street pharmacist" means. The investigation has nothing to do with manner of death.

Below are the statutes /covenants that the (M.E.) office has to abide by. You should find your detailed answers here as it relates to why she/he cannot release information to the public as well as the reasons for performing an autopsy . Hope this helps all who are interested.

390.11 - 2015 Minnesota S...f Statutes

What's the deal with people claiming that other drugs were found in his system when the M.E.'s report only states Fentanyl? I'm tired of people claiming that Prince was a long-time drug addict strung out on multiple drugs. Shades of the MJ circus...

fortuneandserendipity said:

Just knowing the supplier of said medication would reveal a lot, specifically the timeline. If the investigation doesn't go very far, then I'll suspect the reason for that being part-motivated by not wanting people to discern too much.

I too would like to know who the supplier was. He (P) may have been self-supplying( as in buying it off market from the "black market" overseas) . I believe it is rare that law enforcement would be able to trace an OD back to a drug dealer unless said dealer wants to give himself up or is ratted out. If it turns out to be a doctor(s), that would be a bit more palatable for us to bare.

In terms of your timeline, we do know that he must have had a personal stash(prescribed or not) of something from somewhere when he was in Atlanta. I don't think it was aspirin or some new organic tea from China that produced near fatal results on that plane.

As an aside I forgot to mention that if the reasons given by the (ME) are to be taken at face value( and certified as true), It would mean this:

1A. His death was an accident: By accidental death, the (ME) means death by misdaventure. In other words (laymans terms), doing something you shouldn't be doing or by taking a risk that would put you in mortal danger. Let's remember, the decedent "self- administered" which the (ME) concluded that such action was accidental in nature, IE: He didnt know what he was doing when he did it. Here is where it gets a bit tricky ( if there is a doctor on the site please chime in).

1B. The accidental : The (ME) said the "cause" of the accident was "Fentanyl Toxicity". Now, "Overdose Toxicity" refers to a serious, often harmful , and sometimes fatal reaction to an accidental overdose of a drug because of a doctors, pharmacist, or patient error ,or to an intentional overdose(homicide/suicide). In other words she concluded that; (P) was reckless in self administering fentanyl to himself without the proper knowledge of how to do so. In addition, his death was all his fault regardless of where/who he got said drugs from, even if he made the drug himself.

1C. The suicide : The (ME) could not have determine that this was a suicide because in order to determine that to be the "manner of death" ,the (ME) would have to prove that it was a self-inflicted injury with evidence of intent to die. Evidence of intent includes an explicit expression,(suicide note/verbal threat) previous attempts, etc. The fact that you could have unusally high blood concentration of fentanyl in your system appears to have not played a substantial role in the (ME) determining if this could be suicide. Does the (ME) qualify suicide only based on a history or action taken that is consistent with "evidence of intent to die"? What if I never mentioned suicide but was going thru a nasty bout of depression , had withdrawal symptoms and stated things like "I'm looking forward to passing over to the other side in order to celebrate" in the past? I then decide to off myself by abusing my dosage . Do you not think she knew or heard of any of that? She lives in Minnesota and never heard anything?The only thing (evidence) the (ME) would have is the same thing she has now! It's her call and she made it. Accidental.

1D. How about an allergic reaction? You can have accidental death as in death from "Anaphylaxis"( Extreme allergic reactions) due to transdermal effects of fentanyl alone, but this is extremely rare in all of the studies that I have found. This is different from a fatal reaction. In closing, I knew what I saw. On the streets/ in the urban community ,when you say someone is "sick", no one is implying that you have the "flu/you're under the weather/have the runs/ lacking sleep/cancer(s)/ diabetes/ heart disease/ emphesyma/chiggers/ pneumonia/smallpox/a cut/ broken leg/broken back/the clap/etc. It is just stated what it is. As in (P) has the "flu", (P) has diabetes (sugar). Maybe if you're a kid, this word "sick" may often be used to describe certain ailments . Adults (when speaking to other adults on the streets) reserve this word to describe a grave condition. Now, there are only two conditions I know of that would make someone say to another someone in the streets, he/she is "sick". With a bit of deductive reasoning , its right there.This was heard quite often.I have ruled out one.

So much unnecessary speculation.

muleFunk said:

So much unnecessary speculation.

Does this apply to any of your comments or just comments from the rest of us? We can't all be Erudites.

Menes said:

muleFunk said:

So much unnecessary speculation.

Does this apply to any of your comments or just comments from the rest of us? We can't all be Erudites.

Yours mostly.

muleFunk said:

Menes said:

Does this apply to any of your comments or just comments from the rest of us? We can't all be Erudites.

Yours mostly.

"Yours mostly" implies that you have no part in speculating .You didnt own your own speculating in your response, yet you are willing to point out "speculation". That's the difference. I am willing to own my speculation thru and thru and have no problem/issues with someone else's point of view, regardless of how speculative it may be. It doesnt matter . Try it some time. It is said that" he who lives more lives than one, more deaths than one must die". But so lives the hypocrite.

I see you want to fight.

We all speculating but there is useless speculating going on from people who are not reading these threads and jumping to conclusions about what was read. I will add that I have people close to the situation also giving me tidbits of info. That;s how I know there was no hip replacement.

If you read the reports you will come to a rational conclusion to what happened here.

The " yours mostly" response was to you because you seem to be wanting to start shit with me.

If that is not the case then I apologize.

Menes said:

muleFunk said:

Yours mostly.

"Yours mostly" implies that you have no part in speculating .You didnt own your own speculating in your response, yet you are willing to point out "speculation". That's the difference. I am willing to own my speculation thru and thru and have no problem/issues with someone else's point of view, regardless of how speculative it may be. It doesnt matter . Try it some time. It is said that" he who lives more lives than one, more deaths than one must die". But so lives the hypocrite.

[Edited 7/24/16 6:32am]

muleFunk said:

I see you want to fight.

We all speculating but there is useless speculating going on from people who are not reading these threads and jumping to conclusions about what was read. I will add that I have people close to the situation also giving me tidbits of info. That;s how I know there was no hip replacement.

If you read the reports you will come to a rational conclusion to what happened here.

The " yours mostly" response was to you because you seem to be wanting to start shit with me.

If that is not the case then I apologize.

Menes said:

"Yours mostly" implies that you have no part in speculating .You didnt own your own speculating in your response, yet you are willing to point out "speculation". That's the difference. I am willing to own my speculation thru and thru and have no problem/issues with someone else's point of view, regardless of how speculative it may be. It doesnt matter . Try it some time. It is said that" he who lives more lives than one, more deaths than one must die". But so lives the hypocrite.

[Edited 7/24/16 6:32am]

Hello Mule,

1. I am not sure I would understand the difference between "useless speculating" and "speculating".

2. It's good that you have people that are close to the situation to give you tidbits.

3. I dont think its too big of a deal if you and I don't come to the same "rational conclusion".Perhaps we used different methods , as in deductive reasoning vs. inductive .

4. I do not want to start "shit" with you". It's a forum, it's free, and we may disagree from time to time.

5. I probably figured that you were speculating as well....as in "bone marrow problem, race, smear campaign" , all of which has not been proven at this time.

6. I have only one theory, all be it , unproven. If my eyes have deceived me, I have only them to blame for it and not outside sources. I know what I saw.

7. To that end, I apologize if I may have discredited any of your post or disparage your good moniker. Let's get back to "speculatin'". Not only are we good at it, we just might crack this case!

I think we are on the same page.