Michael Jackson's Dumbass Doctor Thread

by **Angel** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:27 pm

Per Deano's request and in order to keep the Amanda Knox thread pure and free from Michael Jackson/Conrad Murray corruption....here is the place to discuss.

From a medical standpoint-this guy has redefined "malpractice." To call him "doctor" is, IMO disrespectful to those honorable doctors in the profession. He was nothing but a drug dealer. I don't care how much MJ begged and pleaded with him to give him these drugs-he had a responsibility to refuse to administer dangerous drugs to him-regardless of the reason for the request. Propofol is never used outside of a hospital or surgical center setting-let alone in someone's bedroom and to help them "sleep." That's not sleep, it's anesthesia!

Ok, discuss.

by **Rockindeano** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:35 pm

Angel wrote:Per Deano's request and in order to keep the Amanda Knox thread pure and free from Michael Jackson/Conrad Murray corruption....here is the place to discuss.

From a medical standpoint-this guy has redefined "malpractice." To call him "doctor" is, IMO disrespectful to those honorable doctors in the profession. He was nothing but a drug dealer. I don't care how much MJ begged and pleaded with him to give him these drugs-he had a responsibility to refuse to administer dangerous drugs to him-regardless of the reason for the request. Propofol is never used outside of a hospital or surgical center setting-let alone in someone's bedroom and to help them "sleep." That's not sleep, it's anesthesia!

Ok, discuss.

You outdid yourself. You covered it all. What's left to discuss? We could all predict whether this fuckin needle dick will go to the hole or walk. I say he gets time. What still gets me and it's pure genius, is Dr Death trolls around with a three pack of clam in tow, writing out scripts. I can see him now. Parked in the Kroger parking lot, writing out a script for Soma and Vicodin to Ho number 1. Hmm, guess what he will be receiving later that evening? Yeah, again, the key to snapper is the prescription pad. I'm convinced this is the reason he is tunnel boring with three bitches.

Honestly, I agree with you Natalie, he should be banned from being a doctor. I wonder if that will be a possibility if he gets time? You know?

Website · by **steveo777** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:51 pm

This doctor is an inhuman piece of cvnt thrust trash and a shame to the medical community. There is only one reason this scumbag took the job of being MJ's doc.....greed propelling fucking money. What did he get, 100 grand a week, or some ridiculous sum? After a few months gig with that he could probably retire. I think the guy is guilty of many more charges and should be brought up on them. Fuck him! I hope he gets processed in prison like the good little ass whore he's about to become.

by **perryswoman** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:30 pm

I sure hope they take his license!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Michael Jackson was one depressed individual. He's been hooked on drugs for a long time. I think that's the way he coped with his feelings about his dad. His dad absolutely ruinned Michael's life. This doctor says he was weining him off drugs. Yea right. Hope he burns in Hell. Would have luved to see that final tour! RIP michael

Website · by **steveo777** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:37 pm

perryswoman wrote:I sure hope they take his license!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Michael Jackson was one depressed individual. He's been hooked on drugs for a long time. I think that's the way he coped with his feelings about his dad. His dad absolutely ruinned Michael's life. This doctor says he was weining him off drugs. Yea right. Hope he burns in Hell. Would have luved to see that final tour! RIP michael

Joe is an asshole and was an abusive father. When the motherfucker dies, I believe, only then, will the daughters have the courage to tell all. I'd even be willing to bet that he sexually abused his kids. I have a gut instinct on this and nobody will talk until Joe is dead.

by **Saint John** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:52 pm

I'm gonna have to side with the doctor on this one, criminally speaking. I'd find him not guilty of manslaughter or whatever he's charged with, but I'd take away his licence. Drug addicts deserve zero sympathy, but so do shitty doctors.

by **Angel** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:02 pm

Saint John wrote:I'm gonna have to side with the doctor on this one, criminally speaking. I'd find him not guilty of manslaughter or whatever he's charged with, but I'd take away his licence. Drug addicts deserve zero sympathy, but so do shitty doctors.

I'm just curious why you would find him not guilty of manslaugther?

by **Saint John** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:40 pm

Angel wrote:
Saint John wrote:I'm gonna have to side with the doctor on this one, criminally speaking. I'd find him not guilty of manslaughter or whatever he's charged with, but I'd take away his licence. Drug addicts deserve zero sympathy, but so do shitty doctors.

I'm just curious why you would find him not guilty of manslaugther?

This should be handled in civil court. It's just a colossal waste of tax payer money to try someone for the death of a low-life drug addict. Revoke his license and call it a day.

by **G.I.Jim** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:47 pm

Saint John wrote:
Angel wrote:
Saint John wrote:I'm gonna have to side with the doctor on this one, criminally speaking. I'd find him not guilty of manslaughter or whatever he's charged with, but I'd take away his licence. Drug addicts deserve zero sympathy, but so do shitty doctors.

I'm just curious why you would find him not guilty of manslaugther?

This should be handled in civil court. It's just a colossal waste of tax payer money to try someone for the death of a low-life drug addict. Revoke his license and call it a day.

Couldn't disagree more. The man was directly involved in the death of another man. He was administering him drugs which had no business being outside of a hospital environment. It's not like he treated him at a hospital and gave him a wrong drug or something by accident. That I could see as a serious medical malpractice lawsuit. We're talking about something much more sinister and serious here. He willingly gave Michael a deadly drug, then just left him alone to die. He then tried to cover his tracks and have the body guards remove all of the evidence before even getting Michael any help. He should lose his license for sure, but he also needs to spend time in prison for manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder...

by **Saint John** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:57 pm

Fair points, Jim, and probably far closer to the interpretation of the law. It's just that I don't see a guy with a decade's long drug habit that has adopted kids as anything more than expendable garbage. And I was really excited about that tour. So much talent, but he chose to live the life of a junkie and I can't condone it or care.

Website · by **steveo777** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 2:59 pm

Saint John wrote:
Angel wrote:
Saint John wrote:I'm gonna have to side with the doctor on this one, criminally speaking. I'd find him not guilty of manslaughter or whatever he's charged with, but I'd take away his licence. Drug addicts deserve zero sympathy, but so do shitty doctors.

I'm just curious why you would find him not guilty of manslaugther?

This should be handled in civil court. It's just a colossal waste of tax payer money to try someone for the death of a low-life drug addict. Revoke his license and call it a day.

You've got this wrong. This doctor is a criminal, a pimp and another drug dealer on a whole nuther level. There is more dirt on this guy.....promise.

by **Angel** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 am

G.I.Jim wrote:Couldn't disagree more. The man was directly involved in the death of another man. He was administering him drugs which had no business being outside of a hospital environment. It's not like he treated him at a hospital and gave him a wrong drug or something by accident. That I could see as a serious medical malpractice lawsuit. We're talking about something much more sinister and serious here. He willingly gave Michael a deadly drug, then just left him alone to die. He then tried to cover his tracks and have the body guards remove all of the evidence before even getting Michael any help. He should lose his license for sure, but he also needs to spend time in prison for manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder...

I agree with Jimbo. It would have been one thing if he was giving him insane amouts of rx's for percocet or something. But propofol?? This is not a drug you can get at your local BallJeans pharmacy. I suspect he had to provide some false information to the pharmacy he ordered it from. It wasn't a matter of giving him an rx-it was a matter of administering the drug to him. A drug that is ONLY used in the OR or ICU setting with patients on numerous monitors and probably intubated with a doctor and/or nurse sitting at the bedside the entire time. Malpractice would be if he gave him too high of a dose of valium. This is a whole new level. This is a criminal case. It doesn't really matter that Michael Jackson was a drug addict for years. Even if Michael Jackson himself asked for the propofol to help him "sleep" the doctor has a duty to decline.

by **tater1977** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:55 am

Would be kind of curious to see if any of the pharmacies, that shipped "a bathtub full" of it..to one of the drs girlfriends house...what responsibility they had?
And then the g/f states...when she signed off on the deliveries...she had no idea , what was in the boxes? :roll:

by **Angel** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:59 am

tater1977 wrote:Would be kind of curious to see if any of the pharmacies, that shipped "a bathtub full" of it..to one of the drs girlfriends house...what responsibility they had?

I think he probably provided some false information to the company. I know the process for ordering medical supplies and it's not like ordering a pizza.

by **bluejeangirl76** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:32 am

Angel wrote:
G.I.Jim wrote:Couldn't disagree more. The man was directly involved in the death of another man. He was administering him drugs which had no business being outside of a hospital environment. It's not like he treated him at a hospital and gave him a wrong drug or something by accident. That I could see as a serious medical malpractice lawsuit. We're talking about something much more sinister and serious here. He willingly gave Michael a deadly drug, then just left him alone to die. He then tried to cover his tracks and have the body guards remove all of the evidence before even getting Michael any help. He should lose his license for sure, but he also needs to spend time in prison for manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder...

I agree with Jimbo. It would have been one thing if he was giving him insane amouts of rx's for percocet or something. But propofol?? This is not a drug you can get at your local BallJeans pharmacy. I suspect he had to provide some false information to the pharmacy he ordered it from. It wasn't a matter of giving him an rx-it was a matter of administering the drug to him. A drug that is ONLY used in the OR or ICU setting with patients on numerous monitors and probably intubated with a doctor and/or nurse sitting at the bedside the entire time. Malpractice would be if he gave him too high of a dose of valium. This is a whole new level. This is a criminal case. It doesn't really matter that Michael Jackson was a drug addict for years. Even if Michael Jackson himself asked for the propofol to help him "sleep" the doctor has a duty to decline.

Thank you. That about sums it up right there. It's not as if this was a one-time deal. This "treatment" went on for an extended period of time. I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that full on sedation every night for two to three months (that we know of) is not how most doctors treat insomnia. And that's before you even consider the improper setting in which this was done, the lack of proper monitoring - or ANY monitoring for that matter. "Malpractice" as it relates to the use of this drug, in my mind, would be if this were taking place in a hospital and something went wrong in the administration of Propofol (or any other anesthetic for that matter) during, before or after its intended use (medical procedure)... there's your civil suit ... this is a whole other game. The criminal charge here is completely warranted.

by **Angel** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:00 am

bluejeangirl76 wrote:Thank you. That about sums it up right there. It's not as if this was a one-time deal. This "treatment" went on for an extended period of time. I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that full on sedation every night for two to three months (that we know of) is not how most doctors treat insomnia.

It's totally insane to think that putting someone under ansthesia is helping with insomina. Anyone who has ever been under anesthesia-or even moderate sedation, knows that you are wiped out for several days after. How is that helpful? I feel far more tired and wiped out after anesthesia than I do when I don't sleep for a few nights.

by **bluejeangirl76** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:30 am

Angel wrote:
bluejeangirl76 wrote:Thank you. That about sums it up right there. It's not as if this was a one-time deal. This "treatment" went on for an extended period of time. I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that full on sedation every night for two to three months (that we know of) is not how most doctors treat insomnia.

It's totally insane to think that putting someone under ansthesia is helping with insomina. Anyone who has ever been under anesthesia-or even moderate sedation, knows that you are wiped out for several days after. How is that helpful? I feel far more tired and wiped out after anesthesia than I do when I don't sleep for a few nights.

That was my thought too, as too how ridiculous it was to use such a method. According to one of the doctors from UCLA that testified a few days ago, Propofol, specifically, has a very short, almost instant, onset and offset time, and that, she said, was one of the "benefits" of using this drug in procedural sedation, that you "wake right up" (as one of the attorneys put it when questioning her). I don't know how true that is, but that's what they said about it in court.

Still, I feel that regardless of the effect, or lack of, it's in no way any kind of reasonable treatment for a condition like insomnia. I almost feel as if there's a big puzzle piece missing there as to the reasons that MJ wished to use such a substance, but what that could be, I don't know. It's just so very weird.

I also would like to know, and as a nurse maybe you could answer it, or maybe it makes as little sense to you as it does to us non-medical folk, why exactly in the hell was a vial of this stuff found INSIDE a slit-open IV bag? Why is anyone cutting open (and then using!) an IV bag for *any* reason? Another thing that makes me wonder just what in the hell was exactly going on in that house for those 2-3 months. :shock:

by **Angel** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:54 am

bluejeangirl76 wrote:I also would like to know, and as a nurse maybe you could answer it, or maybe it makes as little sense to you as it does to us non-medical folk, why exactly in the hell was a vial of this stuff found INSIDE a slit-open IV bag? Why is anyone cutting open (and then using!) an IV bag for *any* reason? Another thing that makes me wonder just what in the hell was exactly going on in that house for those 2-3 months.

That part confuses me as well. When you add medications to an IV bag you inject them through the port in the bottom. You don't make a hole in the bag and put the actual vial in it. I watched a commentary on the trial this morning for a few minutes and they were commenting on the fact that there was no "milky substance" in the bag (propofol looks like milk) but, when propofol is given, it is usually given IV push, which means it is injected into a port in the tubing and not into the bag of fluid. I suppose they could have been doing a propofol drip, then the bag would have had milky residue (maybe) but the lack of a milky substance in the bag doesn't mean it wasn't given. Back to the vial in the bag. I don't know the details-was the IV bag still attached to tubing that was still attached to an IV cath that was still in MJ's vein? If not, maybe someone cut the top and was using it as a trash bag of sorts-it sounds really weird but it could happen. IV bags come in an outer plastic-like bag so when we open the outer bag and take the actual IV bag out, I have often-and often seen other nurses-used the outer bag to collect the trash we have after starting an IV-packages from the cath, syringes and even vials from meds added to the fluids-then we throw that bag away. I suppose he could have been doing this with the empty IV bag...going out on a limb but it's the only explaination I could think of for an empty vial inside of a cut open bag. Now, if the bag was still attached to MJ then I have NO idea.

by **perryswoman** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:51 pm

Angel wrote:
G.I.Jim wrote:Couldn't disagree more. The man was directly involved in the death of another man. He was administering him drugs which had no business being outside of a hospital environment. It's not like he treated him at a hospital and gave him a wrong drug or something by accident. That I could see as a serious medical malpractice lawsuit. We're talking about something much more sinister and serious here. He willingly gave Michael a deadly drug, then just left him alone to die. He then tried to cover his tracks and have the body guards remove all of the evidence before even getting Michael any help. He should lose his license for sure, but he also needs to spend time in prison for manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder...

I agree with Jimbo. It would have been one thing if he was giving him insane amouts of rx's for percocet or something. But propofol?? This is not a drug you can get at your local BallJeans pharmacy. I suspect he had to provide some false information to the pharmacy he ordered it from. It wasn't a matter of giving him an rx-it was a matter of administering the drug to him. A drug that is ONLY used in the OR or ICU setting with patients on numerous monitors and probably intubated with a doctor and/or nurse sitting at the bedside the entire time. Malpractice would be if he gave him too high of a dose of valium. This is a whole new level. This is a criminal case. It doesn't really matter that Michael Jackson was a drug addict for years. Even if Michael Jackson himself asked for the propofol to help him "sleep" the doctor has a duty to decline.

I agree with both of yall. The fact that he was a drug addict is the main reason Doctor Murray should have declined. He was being paid to be a legal drug pusher. The fact that there was ever this drug administered outside of the hospital for any reason whatsoever is reason enough to hang him by his balls. I agree with Steveo too. Do think Joe sexually abused some of the kids but michael for sure. I remember him talking about Joe on Oprah that time and you could see he was terrified of his dad even as a grown man. Michael hated everything about himself which is a clear sign of abuse. Damn shame too. Hope doc murray and joe have a seat together in hell!

by **perryswoman** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:51 pm

Angel wrote:
G.I.Jim wrote:Couldn't disagree more. The man was directly involved in the death of another man. He was administering him drugs which had no business being outside of a hospital environment. It's not like he treated him at a hospital and gave him a wrong drug or something by accident. That I could see as a serious medical malpractice lawsuit. We're talking about something much more sinister and serious here. He willingly gave Michael a deadly drug, then just left him alone to die. He then tried to cover his tracks and have the body guards remove all of the evidence before even getting Michael any help. He should lose his license for sure, but he also needs to spend time in prison for manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder...

I agree with Jimbo. It would have been one thing if he was giving him insane amouts of rx's for percocet or something. But propofol?? This is not a drug you can get at your local BallJeans pharmacy. I suspect he had to provide some false information to the pharmacy he ordered it from. It wasn't a matter of giving him an rx-it was a matter of administering the drug to him. A drug that is ONLY used in the OR or ICU setting with patients on numerous monitors and probably intubated with a doctor and/or nurse sitting at the bedside the entire time. Malpractice would be if he gave him too high of a dose of valium. This is a whole new level. This is a criminal case. It doesn't really matter that Michael Jackson was a drug addict for years. Even if Michael Jackson himself asked for the propofol to help him "sleep" the doctor has a duty to decline.

I agree with both of yall. The fact that he was a drug addict is the main reason Doctor Murray should have declined. He was being paid to be a legal drug pusher. The fact that there was ever this drug administered outside of the hospital for any reason whatsoever is reason enough to hang him by his balls. I agree with Steveo too. Do think Joe sexually abused some of the kids but michael for sure. I remember him talking about Joe on Oprah that time and you could see he was terrified of his dad even as a grown man. Michael hated everything about himself which is a clear sign of abuse. Damn shame too. Hope doc murray and joe have a seat together in hell!

by **SteveForever** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 12:52 pm

I read today that Michael slept with a doll, ick....what is up with this crap?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urors.html

by **perryswoman** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:23 am

SteveForever wrote:I read today that Michael slept with a doll, ick....what is up with this crap?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urors.html

It is really sad

by **Behshad** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:27 am

SteveForever wrote:I read today that Michael slept with a doll, ick....what is up with this crap?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urors.html

So what. Neal does this every night , but in his case its someone else's wife :lol:

by **perryswoman** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:21 am

Behshad wrote:
SteveForever wrote:I read today that Michael slept with a doll, ick....what is up with this crap?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urors.html

So what. Neal does this every night , but in his case its someone else's wife

by **artist4perry** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:33 am

Always a drug enabler, never a doctor.

Website · by **steveo777** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:12 am

Sentenced to 4 years.

by **perryswoman** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:04 am

steveo777 wrote:Sentenced to 4 years.

. Probably won't do a month.

MR

Michael Jackson's Dumbass Doctor Thread

Michael Jackson's Dumbass Doctor Thread

Re: Michael Jackson's Dumbass Doctor Thread

Who is online