Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[ivy]

From the testimony given to date do you feel that Michael was open about his use of propofol? Do you feel for example that Katherine knew or Karen Faye or Kenny Ortega?

that's why I asked about non medical people. Doctors knowing health issues and medicines being used is common. All of my doctors know about my health , all of them ask questions about any changes. So it's expected for a doctor treating a person to know.

It's the non medical people that matter to talk about a public knowledge. It seems like only Debbie Rowe was knowlegable about Propofol and even she thought it was a 2 time thing.

LaPerruque, Randy Jackson, and Rowe testifying for AEG.

I asked about Propofol and neither LaPerruque nor Randy was aware of Propofol. For propofol it was only Debbie that was remotely aware of it.

 

[ivy]

Update about the case status. we also learn that the verdict forms haven't finalized yet.

Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 20m
A lot of these details will get fleshed out in the next couple of weeks. But clearly, the case is winding down.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 20m
The lawyers and the judge also have to decide how long each side will have for closing arguments. Closings may be 4 hours apiece, or less.
Expand
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 20m
The attorneys have a fair amount of work to do on jury instructions and the verdict form before the end of the case.
Expand
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 20m
There will be a rebuttal case, but it’s unclear how many witnesses will be called. Putnam said he may challenge some of the witnesses.
Expand
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 21m
Putnam said he’s only got two or three more live witnesses but didn’t name them. Friday will be a day of video testimony.
Expand
Anthony McCartney ‏@mccartneyAP 21m
It sounds like AEG Live’s case will be done by the end of next week at the latest. Defense attorney Marvin Putnam said it may be done sooner

 

[LastTear]

He also talked about Propofol used properly in a medical setting. Small changes in the dose can one can go from unconscious to death.Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 21m
On the Slide 3. Drug synergy between the propofol and other drugs he used. 4. Obstacles for a successful recovery.
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 22m
He used a slide in court to show the 4 reasons he felt MJ was grave. 1. inappropriate use of propofol. 2. Opioid Addiction
Expand
ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 23m
And, the propofol was having negative effects on his life and on a medical scale of life expectancy he said MJ condition was grave.

I would be interested to hearing the full testimony on how Early came to his conclusions on the slides.

 

[Petrarose]

I thought during the Muarry trial it was said that you cannot be addicted to prof, but there is a dependency. Now Early did a study about prof addiction. The thing is AEG paid to complete the study, so I don't know if this study has biases in it.

Earley said AEG Live agreed to pay for the study because there wasn’t a lot of literature about propofol addiction.
Earley said he had treated about 25 cases of propofol addiction during his 30-year career _ all were medical professionals.


I remember one of the witnesses said that the few cases where prof caused death was with medical professionals. I wonder if Earley is talking about those cases?

Lastear I was thinking that Early is incorporating opiate addiction and prof addiction and saying Michael was in a bad state. I guess he means Michael would die soon, since AEG is also using Early to show early death & to reduce damages. However, why wasn't the body in worse condition than it was? How often during 93 to 2009 was he taking prof every night. I feel in these calculations the doctors make these computations based on a consistent, ongoing use of demerol and prof. I guess if there was a Michael side the lawyer would have gone after these distinctions. However, we only have Katherine side and AEG side so some of this testimony goes unchallenged.

 

[LastTear]

^^^ Idk - that's why I was interested to hear his testimony in more detail. Prior or during the Murray trial I googled propofol addiction and some results did come up, I will try and find them again.

in the meantime this was written by Dr Early.

J Addict Med. 2013 May-Jun;7(3):169-76. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0b013e3182872901.
Addiction to propofol: a study of 22 treatment cases.
Earley PH, Finver T.
Source
Georgia Professionals Health Program, Atlanta, GA, USA. paulearley@earleyconsultancy.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To review and report the history and clinical presentation of a cohort of health care professionals (HCPs) who have abused the drug propofol.
METHODS:
The authors queried a clinical database (the HCP Database) that contained information about HCPs treated at a large addiction center between 1990 and 2010. Patients who reported propofol use were removed from the HCP Database and placed in a second database referred to herein as the Propofol Database. The medical records of each of the cases in the Propofol Database were pulled and carefully reviewed; a clinical case history of each case was prepared. The Propofol Database was expanded by this chart review, adding demographics, drugs used, course of substance use, other clinical history, presenting signs, diagnoses, and comorbid conditions. At this point, the case histories and databases and were anonymized. When variables were present in both data sets, significance was tested between the HCP Database and the Propofol Database. When comparable data were not present in the HCP Database, the authors reported simple percentages within the Propofol Database. This study focused on gender, medical education and specialty, drugs used, course of illness, and comorbid conditions.
RESULTS:
Compared with the composite treatment population of HCPs during the same time, records showed that the propofol group was more likely to work in the operating theater, be female, and have training as an anesthesiologist or certified registered nurse anesthetist. Presentation into treatment from the propofol cohort more commonly occurred soon after beginning propofol use, often presenting in a dramatic fashion such as motor vehicle accidents or other physical injuries. When such injuries occurred, it was a direct result of acute propofol intoxication. The number of cases arriving in treatment increased over the duration of the study. The propofol group frequently suffered with a depressive illness and had a history of earlier life trauma. They had a high frequency of biological relatives with substance dependence. The most common subjective response as to why they began using propofol was to induce sleep. Most of these patients identified propofol as one of their preferred drugs of abuse.
CONCLUSIONS:
This study suggests the incidence and/or detection rate of propofol abuse in HCPs is increasing. Women and anesthesia personnel were overrepresented in the propofol cohort. Propofol-dependent patients commonly have a history of depression and earlier life trauma. A rapid downhill course and physical injury are common adverse effects of propofol abuse. The time from initial use to treatment entry is often contracted when compared with other drugs of abuse making the diagnosis of a true dependence disorder and disposition after treatment more difficult.
PMID: 23519047 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances


LinkOut - more resources

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23519047

 

[ivy]

From Dr. Shafer

MJJC: Can a person become dependent or addicted to propofol? If yes what kind of dependency is it physical or psychological?

Dr. Steve Shafer: There is not much data about this, because propofol must be given intravenously, and it really burns, which discourages abuse. However, there have been a number of deaths of anesthesiologists and other health care personal from propofol abuse. Based on this, I am reasonably confident that it is addictive.


I think the reason people used to say "Propofol is not addictive" was due to normally an average person is given it for a short amount of time in a hospital setting and they don't have access to it regularly out of the hospital. That also means there won't be much data about it. The only data comes from health professionals who had access to propofol and abused it and even had some deaths. So for example a nurse injecting Propofol repeatedly to herself seems to show that it can be addictive - only if you have access to it and use it regularly.

 

[LastTear]

I think what I read was indeed about medical people who would inject small doses for a 'power nap' and who liked the euphoria feeling on awakening and as propofol causes amnesia they forget the burn they feel upon injection.

@Petrarose

Lastear I was thinking that Early is incorporating opiate addiction and prof addiction and saying Michael was in a bad state. I guess he means Michael would die soon, since AEG is also using Early to show early death & to reduce damages. However, why wasn't the body in worse condition than it was? How often during 93 to 2009 was he taking prof every night. I feel in these calculations the doctors make these computations based on a consistent, ongoing use of demerol and prof. I guess if there was a Michael side the lawyer would have gone after these distinctions. However, we only have Katherine side and AEG side so some of this testimony goes unchallenged.

I question this as well.

 

[jamba]

Ivy, allow me to clarify my comment: in AEG’s defense, not one of their medical professional witnesses who have treated Michael have shown Michael to be secretive with propofol or any other substance for that matter.

There was the anesthesiologist who gave MJ propofol in Klein's office who refused to sedate him for a scheduled procedure b/c he thought MJ was acting "off" and found out that MJ had not revealed info re meds taken (I believe it was demerol) and Klein did not reveal it either. He refused to administer propofol to MJ after that. There was one time MJ stopped breathing for 5 minutes with this anesthesiologist. This guy felt both MJ and Klein had failed to tell him what MJ was taking and so he refused to participate any more as his anesthesiologist.

 

[ivy]

Lastear I was thinking that Early is incorporating opiate addiction and prof addiction and saying Michael was in a bad state. I guess he means Michael would die soon, since AEG is also using Early to show early death & to reduce damages. However, why wasn't the body in worse condition than it was? How often during 93 to 2009 was he taking prof every night. I feel in these calculations the doctors make these computations based on a consistent, ongoing use of demerol and prof. I guess if there was a Michael side the lawyer would have gone after these distinctions. However, we only have Katherine side and AEG side so some of this testimony goes unchallenged.

I question this as well.

I'm no medical expert but I have seen in their partial depositions mention of no liver damage and talk about the internal organs rearing themselves and life expectancy going back to normal after 2 years of clean period. As far as I can see, these 3 doctors (including Jacksons expert) see Michael's drug use with ups and downs, no total absenteeism but low or clean periods helping to heal any damage. referring back to the deposition summaries, they claimed it was a serious addiction with chronic relapses and probably won't get better / cannot get totally clean. and they are arguing whenever you are using drugs you face the risk of an accidental overdose.

 

[barbee0715]

I read McCartney's synopsis of the trial on the AP over the weekend (and Ivy has posted it here on Day 78 of the trial). This article is a must read-FINALLY, in my opinion, a truly sympathetic look at what was going on medically-filled with logic, HONESTY, and empathy. I was especially delighted that McCartney actually mentioned both the vitiligo AND the discoid lupus that Michael felt had disfigured him-and the procedures he had to suffer through, rather than this always absurd story of addiction to plastic surgery that they have been trying to feed us for years. Maybe things are changing!!!! It may not do any good-I've been pointing out the diseases to people for years and years and years and they don't listen to me- Anyway, just thought it was a good article.

 

[Petrarose]

Lastear that prof study from Earley is more like prof abuse. The people are abusing it for sleep, which they claim. Where in the report is he explaining how this is addiction and what in prof causes the addiction? At first I thought good he is showing some of the effects of the use, but I notice he said they added "drug used" and other "clinical history." If the whole group is supposed to be a prof using group, by adding "drug used" this tells me the people in the study took prof and other drugs too. How does he know if the effects he sees is due to prof only or due to the effects of prof and other drugs? That is why I do not like these rush shoddy studies done to help court cases. To me this study is flawed and is not a good marker of how prof will affect Michael. Even the people say that prof was one of their preferred drugs of abuse--This means they are taking other drugs too. For something to be one of your preferred it means you have a list of top preferences.

Oh oh and don't forget the part he added about "clinical history." I want to know what the clinical history is. Does it involve treatment for any psychological/mental health issues, does it involve any other drug treatment, does it involve any medical treatments for health conditions? You can see that if they have anyone in that group taking other drugs or with any mental issues the behavior he sees could be a combination of the effects of mental behaviors plus the effects of other drugs.

What he needed to do was get a group of professionals with no other problem than using prof for sleep. It is only then, that he could say with certainty that the effects he sees is caused by the prof. Then, he needs to list all their medical conditions, if any. I have more problems with that study. I wonder if Earley gave them a drug test to see what other chemicals were in their body?

Someone should get Panish to argue more about throwing out that paper. Panish needs to get the full study with all the raw data: the demographics on the sample, their drug use, etc. You remember how White's paper went ga ga?

Ivy I see the point about after 2 years they repair, but he would have to have a lot of 2 year drug free periods for his body to heal so well, based on the fact they are saying he was a bad drug addict who would not recover. To me that 2 year healing theory is not consistent with then saying his drug addition was severe. With that type of heavy addiction how could he find sufficient 2-year periods to heal.

For instance, one expert said he was abusing drugs since 93 up to his death in 09. We heard testimony that he never stopped and that even when he had the patches he was not clean. So when did he get the 2-year periods to heal? Then he needed more than one 2-year period. Even those experts who skip some years and say the abuse was not continuious don't give him sufficient 2-year periods to heal, so when did the body heal itself. I guess only the KOP's body could do such amazing things.

What is needed is a Michael side to go after these fine points, but we don't have it.

 

[jamba]

Lastear that prof study from Earley is more like prof abuse. The people are abusing it for sleep, which they claim. Where in the report is he explaining how this is addiction and what in prof causes the addiction? At first I thought good he is showing some of the effects of the use, but I notice he said they added "drug used" and other "clinical history." If the whole group is supposed to be a prof using group, by adding "drug used" this tells me the people in the study took prof and other drugs too. How does he know if the effects he sees is due to prof only or due to the effects of prof and other drugs? That is why I do not like these rush shoddy studies done to help court cases. To me this study is flawed and is not a good marker of how prof will affect Michael. Even the people say that prof was one of their preferred drugs of abuse--This means they are taking other drugs too. For something to be one of your preferred it means you have a list of top preferences.

Oh oh and don't forget the part he added about "clinical history." I want to know what the clinical history is. Does it involve treatment for any psychological/mental health issues, does it involve any other drug treatment, does it involve any medical treatments for health conditions? You can see that if they have anyone in that group taking other drugs or with any mental issues the behavior he sees could be a combination of the effects of mental behaviors plus the effects of other drugs.

What he needed to do was get a group of professionals with no other problem than using prof for sleep. It is only then, that he could say with certainty that the effects he sees is caused by the prof. Then, he needs to list all their medical conditions, if any. I have more problems with that study. I wonder if Earley gave them a drug test to see what other chemicals were in their body?

Someone should get Panish to argue more about throwing out that paper. Panish needs to get the full study with all the raw data: the demographics on the sample, their drug use, etc. You remember how White's paper went ga ga?

Ivy I see the point about after 2 years they repair, but he would have to have a lot of 2 year drug free periods for his body to heal so well, based on the fact they are saying he was a bad drug addict who would not recover. To me that 2 year healing theory is not consistent with then saying his drug addition was severe. With that type of heavy addiction how could he find sufficient 2-year periods to heal.

For instance, one expert said he was abusing drugs since 93 up to his death in 09. We heard testimony that he never stopped and that even when he had the patches he was not clean. So when did he get the 2-year periods to heal? Then he needed more than one 2-year period. Even those experts who skip some years and say the abuse was not continuious don't give him sufficient 2-year periods to heal, so when did the body heal itself. I guess only the KOP's body could do such amazing things.

What is needed is a Michael side to go after these fine points, but we don't have it.

As far as the study, you need to read the whole thing to evaluate it and not just a summary IMO. I wonder if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal--that would mean it has been reviewed by other experts in the field before being published.

Re the internal organs indicating no addiction/dependence/grave condition, this might be a huge debating point due to medical science not being precise as far as predicting from an autopsy report what could happen physically to the same person if that person had lived--re life expectancy, future health, etc. One thing about the autopsy report was that MJ's lungs were not in good shape--this struck me, since it would impact his performance stamina and esp. his singing live. Also CM treated MJ for at least 2 lung ailments earlier when he was in Las Vegas--in one report he says MJ was coughing up greenish phlegm (sorry for the specifics) and that is a sign of pneumonia or bronchitis. Pneumonia is highly debilitating, as anyone who has had it can tell you! I think MJ also had a case of the flu in 09 during TII (?). I think his lungs were a weak point that I did not know about before.

The other point is the lack of natural sleep and the experts who said you can literally die from that.

It would be relevant to find a case of someone who died from propofol addiction (maybe from Earley's study) and see if an autopsy showed organ damage. What about demerol or other prescription med addictions--have autopsies been done on addicts who died that document organ damage? Just wondering. It is an interesting question and I agree it is a good thing to ask about re MJ's specific situation. But if they do that maybe we will have the trial for a few more weeks?

 

[ivy]

article here : http://www.gobookee.net/get_book.ph...vbDogQSBTdHVkeSBvZiAyMiBUcmVhdG1lbnQgQ2FzZXM=

presentation here : http://www.fsphp.org/Earley, Propofol Presentation.pdf


edited to add:

about effects on organs

for propofol Dr. Shafer have said there isn't any long term use studies / research so there's no way to say what the effect would be for Propofol.

I googled for opiates and organ damage and the scientific consensus seems to be that pure opiates do not cause damage to the body, but rather, various things that are added with the opiates can cause liver damage. So the main problem seems to be the additives and not the opiates themselves. The main problem seems to be Acetaminophen and most medicines are a mixture of Acetaminophen and an opiate and liver damage happens if a person takes more than 4000 mg of Acetaminophen a day.

Also organ damage / liver damage from the use of street drugs is due to what they are cut with - again what is added to them, and it is stated that recreational drugs have higher probability of causing organ damage.

http://www.promotingexcellence.org/downloads/jacs_0203.pdf (Opioids do not damage organs)

the other affected organ is the brain but not in the sense of a damage but how it operates. It gets used to the opiates and cannot function without them

I tried to check specifically for Demerol

I found a FDA study that says multi organ damage from Demerol is 1.6 % - http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/demerol/multi-organ+failure

there was no reports of Demerol and liver damage - http://www.ehealthme.com/ds/demerol/liver+damage


I did find a discussion forum - non doctors but long term users for pain management - stating that at 500 mg per day Demerol risks liver damage.


so I guess whether there would be a liver damage or not from any prescription painkiller is dependent on the daily dose.

 

[Petrarose]

Jamba I read the whole thing that was posted above, not only the summary as you say. Now if I get the whole study with all the demographics, etc., then it will be very good.

About the lungs, yes but the coroner said the problem was not life threatening. Anyway we know Michael lost consciousness while with Jermaine and brothers, and it was linked to a childhood illness pulsury (can't spell it). This suggests to me that his lungs were weakened since childhood due to that illness, so we cannot attribute all lung damage to prof or demerol use. You see that is bad research. That is why you have to really define your sample and weed out all the issues that will bias your results. For you to look at the lungs of your participant and claim the drug caused it, you have to first know how the lungs were before the person took the drug, then you have to know what other drugs or sicknesses affected the lungs. After that you introduce the prof to see if there is more damage to the lungs. Then you will know the new change in the lungs is due to the prof use. Of course you can't do this with a human.

Now when I was talking to Ivy about the body, I was referring to the physical condition of the whole body, not only about the lungs. About your autopsy idea, even if one of Earley's participants died and they did an autopsy, how would you know the damage is due to prof, if Earley's participants take other drugs too? You see that is my problem with Earley's study. Now if he shows all the data, and I see his sample consisted only of prof users then I can say that there is a link between prof use and damage to the body.

I know that severe drug addicts like the ones the experts say Michael is, do have organ damage that is life threatening. Last year I met a man who was living with brain, stomach & liver damage. He was taking crack and angel dust for years. He told me the doctor told him these organs were severely damaged and he could die. He went to rehab while in jail for 8 years. Another man said he had severe liver damage because he was on drugs and the doctor told him he would not live long. He did not say which drugs he took, but they all took street drugs. One of my uncles was a bad alcoholic. His liver was severely damaged, and he died due to this. So my question is what type of crazy addict is Michael to be using demerol and prof constantly since 93 to 09 and his body still find time to heal? Didn't Shaffer say that everything we take in pass through the liver.

That is why I feel that Michael's addiction was not as continuous as most of these experts claim. However, I have come to the conclusion that I will not find any clarity in a case like this where there is no Michael side.

 

[Petrarose]

Ivy good find about the prof and demerol ^^. Now about this: for propofol Dr. Shafer have said there isn't any long term use studies / research so there's no way to say what the effect would be for Propofol.


We need to see how long Earley's participants were taking prof, but then if they were taking other drugs too, we have a big problem.

I found this very interesting: So the problem seems to be the additives and not the opiates. Then how come that other discussion board states: 500 mg per day Demerol risks liver damage? Are they talking about demerol mixed with additives, or is it because the amount is so high, it causes damage to the liver?

Gee I wish I had gone into the study of drugs, this is becoming very interesting.

 

[ivy]

^^

the first one was more about street drugs and how the main issue being what those drugs were being cut with. they also stated pure opiates do not cause liver damage and most of the times the drugs (both street and prescription) are a combination. It was also about how street drugs more likely to cause organ / liver damage than prescription drugs.

regardless of that all of the drugs are broken down / metabolized at the liver and there seems to be maximum doses that the liver can handle, it was stated to be 500 mg for Demerol - although as I said I cannot verify it with medical source. edited to add: this website lists daily maximum dose at 600 mg - 25-150 mg IM/SC/IV/orally every 3 to 4 hours as needed. - http://www.globalrph.com/pain.htm so I would think 500 mg - 600 mg a day seems to be the correct maximum daily dose range.


The FDA data was interesting, I believe the first link showed they reported over 4000 people, with 1.6% multi organ damage and no one with liver damage.

so it could be a matter of dose, Tylenol which is acetaminophen and easily available over the counter, has the risk of liver damage at 4000 mg a day but a lot of people use it with no issues within the daily recommended doses.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, Last Tear, you asked me a question and I answered.

How many other witnesses were there for AEG that fall into the family, friends, ex-employee category besides LaPerruque, Randy Jackson, and Rowe? Did I miss any witness who could be characterized as such? If I did, did they establish Michael was a secretive propofol addict in their testimony?

Please do not forget that AEG is attempting to defend themselves by showing Michael as a secretive addict not simply a secretive propofol addict. AEG has not established either effectively and their defense will end fairly soon.

Jamba, you are referring to Fournier who did not know about Michael’s implant although, Klein knew.

 

[ivy]

How many other witnesses were there for AEG that fall into the family, friends, ex-employee category besides LaPerruque, Randy Jackson, and Rowe? Did I miss any witness who could be characterized as such?

why are you limiting yourself to people called by AEG and omitting the cross examinations?

in addition to Laperreque, Randy Jackson and Debbie Rowe the following people - family, friends, employees, business partners- were asked about drugs / propofol : Karen Faye, Alif Sankey, Kenny Ortega, Taj Jackson, TJ Jackson, Katherine Jackson, Prince Jackson, Kai Chase, Stacy Walker, Travis Payne, Randy Phillips, Paul Gongaware

how many of them knew about Propofol? How many of them suspected a drug addiction in 2009?

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I was discussing AEG's defense. The plaintiffs are not trying to show Michael as a secretive addict and no, I did not see evidence of Michael being a secretive addict during cross of the plaintiffs' witnesses or the adverse witnesses.

Michael's so-called secretive addiction was barely discussed in this thread if at all until the defense's case started.

 

[jamba]

Jamba I read the whole thing that was posted above, not only the summary as you say. Now if I get the whole study with all the demographics, etc., then it will be very good.

About the lungs, yes but the coroner said the problem was not life threatening. Anyway we know Michael lost consciousness while with Jermaine and brothers, and it was linked to a childhood illness pulsury (can't spell it). This suggests to me that his lungs were weakened since childhood due to that illness, so we cannot attribute all lung damage to prof or demerol use. You see that is bad research. That is why you have to really define your sample and weed out all the issues that will bias your results. For you to look at the lungs of your participant and claim the drug caused it, you have to first know how the lungs were before the person took the drug, then you have to know what other drugs or sicknesses affected the lungs. After that you introduce the prof to see if there is more damage to the lungs. Then you will know the new change in the lungs is due to the prof use. Of course you can't do this with a human.

Now when I was talking to Ivy about the body, I was referring to the physical condition of the whole body, not only about the lungs. About your autopsy idea, even if one of Earley's participants died and they did an autopsy, how would you know the damage is due to prof, if Earley's participants take other drugs too? You see that is my problem with Earley's study. Now if he shows all the data, and I see his sample consisted only of prof users then I can say that there is a link between prof use and damage to the body.

I know that severe drug addicts like the ones the experts say Michael is, do have organ damage that is life threatening. Last year I met a man who was living with brain, stomach & liver damage. He was taking crack and angel dust for years. He told me the doctor told him these organs were severely damaged and he could die. He went to rehab while in jail for 8 years. Another man said he had severe liver damage because he was on drugs and the doctor told him he would not live long. He did not say which drugs he took, but they all took street drugs. One of my uncles was a bad alcoholic. His liver was severely damaged, and he died due to this. So my question is what type of crazy addict is Michael to be using demerol and prof constantly since 93 to 09 and his body still find time to heal? Didn't Shaffer say that everything we take in pass through the liver.

That is why I feel that Michael's addiction was not as continuous as most of these experts claim. However, I have come to the conclusion that I will not find any clarity in a case like this where there is no Michael side.

Petra, I did not know you had read the whole study of Earley--wow--I am impressed--it seems very dense (also published in a good journal).

I did not mean to indicate I thought any lung damage was caused by addiction/drugs. I just brought that up while talking about the autopsy report and the condition of the organs. I agree with you that it goes back to the early days--and yes, there was the pleurisy too. On the other hand, I did read that b/c of such extensive propofol for 60 days, if we believe CM, without the proper equipment (breathing machine) that the lungs got negatively affected by that heavy sedation. (On this topic, I think MJ lacked proper outdoor exercise once he got to Las Vegas--I read he took long walks in Ireland and of course at Neverland, but was more indoors to avoid the paps once back in USA.) I think lupus damages the lungs as well.

BTW, Earley says he did an extensive medical history on the propofol addicts, and I would guess it was included in the study. Maybe they checked for other addictions (if that info was available)?

 

[jamba]

Jamba, you are referring to Fournier who did not know about Michael’s implant although, Klein knew.

Yes, you are right--Fournier (thanks)--and he is IMO a medical person who believed MJ was withholding info re drugs.

 

[LastTear]

Ivy, I was discussing AEG's defense. The plaintiffs are not trying to show Michael as a secretive addict and no, I did not see evidence of Michael being a secretive addict during cross of the plaintiffs' witnesses or the adverse witnesses.

Michael's so-called secretive addiction was barely discussed in this thread if at all until the defense's case started.

It wouldn't be discussed before as it is part of the defence in that Michaels propofol use was secretive, none of the non medical witnesses brought from either side have testified that they knew of Michaels use of propofol, if they didn't know then he chose not to share it with them, therefore he kept it a secret.

 

[ivy]

how about a little brain exercise?

09/03/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (COMBINED STATEMENT OF DEFTS DESIGNATIONS PLTFS COUNTER DESIGNATIONS AND RELATED OBJEC. FOR MYER SHIMELMAN, M.D. AND ORDERS )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

given that they worked on designations and orders, Shimelman - Jackson addiction expert- deposition is allowed


08/29/2013 Brief (REDACTED DEFDTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS TRIAL BRIEF RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY OF KAREN FAYE OF HER RECORDED RECOLLECTIONS CONTAINED IN TEXT MESSAGES)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

they are arguing text messages sent by Karen Faye to be hearsay. Depending on the outcome they can come up (or not) during rebuttal.


08/29/2013 Reply/Response (DEFDTS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLTFFS TRIAL BRIEF RE: ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF SABRINA STRONG )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

seems like Jacksons did file a brief about Strong helping Lee. And AEG responded.

 

[Big Apple2]

ONE thing stands out for me regarding the tweets from yesterday's testimony.

That being: The slides wherein Dr. Van Valin testifies (via video deposition, I guess) that "in 2002, Jackson brought him (Van Valin) a box of Propofol and asked him (Van Valin) to give it to him (MJ)."

WHAT IN THE WORLD!

Can that be true? Who the heck would just give a patient their very own supply of Propofol!!!!!

Thus far, Dr. Van Valin's video deposition will be played on Friday (maybe), which other video depositions are scheduled for airing on Friday - anybody know?

 

[ivy]

the remaining video depositions - as we can see from designations and orders are - Van Valin, Metzger, Ratner and Shimelman.

 

[jaydom7]

why didn't Dr Van Valin report that to the medical board? being a doctor wasn't he a little bit surprised that MJ would have his own box of propofol?? I believe he's lying:busted: All of these doctors were greedy and corrupt. They all need their medical license taken away

 

[ivy]

^^

How could Van Valin report Michael to medical board? What would medical board do to Michael, suspend his non existent medical license? Plus Propofol isn't a controlled substance. Anger is understandable but please let's be realistic here.

 

[Soundmind]

It wouldn't be discussed before as it is part of the defence in that Michaels propofol use was secretive, none of the non medical witnesses brought from either side have testified that they knew of Michaels use of propofol, if they didn't know then he chose not to share it with them, therefore he kept it a secret.

Debbie said she was aware and Grace too and they were there monitoring him . She did also say once she married him she was no longer his nurse , she said she had a completely different role in his life, so she was not there as a nurse she was there and knew because she was his wife .

 

[LastTear]

Debbie his wife , and Grace the kids nanny who lived with him . why would he tell Karen or Randy ? By the way AEG said no one ever knew about propofol but the medical professionals However as I said Debbie his wife was aware and Grace .

No reason why he should tell anyone, it was entirely up to him, but the point as it relates to the trial is that it was not common knowledge and people who he was close to did not know. I don't know about Grace knowing but we can't include her here as she has not testified.

 

[Big Apple2]

Debbie his wife , and Grace the kids nanny who lived with him . why would he tell Karen or Randy ? By the way AEG said no one ever knew about propofol but the medical professionals However as I said Debbie his wife was aware and Grace .

Did Grace say she was aware of Michael's Propofol use?

To my knowledge, she never participated in a video deposition and appears to be in hiding now. So where did that information come from - I'm just curious.

ETA - On a personal tip, I can't see Michael Jackson, or anyone else for that matter, going around BRAGGING to folks that in order to deal with their sleep issues they are "put under" by using Propofol, which is supposed to only be used in a hospital setting.

In my opinion, the words "ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS" seems to be the direction in which this information was being shared.