Saturday, June 26, 2010

In Case of Axident...

“Buprenex does the same as Demerol, the only difference is you cannot become an addict on Buprenex. Buprenex Synthetic Demerol. 2 viles (vials) I would feel safe. Have it in case of axident (accident).” (I love Michael's little misspellings here and there!)

This was supposedly picked up as evidence in the November 2003 raid that was spurned by the molestation charges that Jackson was later completely acquitted of (for more details on his acquittal please read Aphrodite Jones' book "Conspiracy" which contains actual material from court documents rather than from tabloid fodder). I am also currently seeking information regarding the "massive drug raid" that supposedly took place during this time, just FYI. I will mention that finding "IV bags containing a white, milky substance", as I have seen on some of these tabloid sites referring back to 2003 should in no way have been propofol as it comes only in glass bottles and should remain in those bottles only as it can become easily contaminated from being transferred. The only "white, milky substance" I have seen in a bag is pure lipids (fats). I am assuming that over time some originally clear substances could become white and somewhat milky, though propofol is indeed bright white. I will continue to get to the bottom of this at another time.

But, back to the note many say this note shows that Jackson was not actually a drug-seeking addict but rather someone apparently trying to look out for his health and avoid dependence on any medications, including pain medications like Demerol. I agree. A good friend of mine wrote a blog in detail about this view which can be found here:

I agree with her view. This note, in my opinion, shows he valued his health and was attempting to look out for himself and he was trusting doctors. I want to now highlight on this actual medication Buprenex. I would think the doctor that gave him this information came from this link some time ago:

What irks me is this is one of the most unprofessional letters I have ever seen. This supposed doctor could not even spell Buprenex correctly, and the letter is riddled with other mistakes as well. Whomever told Michael that Buprenex was not addictive (and I assume a doctor or at least a doctor verified this to him or he would not have written it down)--was flat-out LYING to him and apparently poor Michael believed him as any normal lay person would.

A doctor telling him that it would not cause addiction (dependence/tolerance), which is evident or Michael would not have wrote it in his letter I am sure, is malpractice. Below I will quote some of what I wrote to Seven in the above mentioned blog so you can see how doctors were manipulating this man for some time and why it is evident to understand how he could thus accept that propofol was safe for treating insomnia as I firmly believe he believe he fell for this lie, too:

“I looked up Buprenex, generic name buprenorphine, because I was unfamiliar with it. I really wish I knew which doctor told him about this medicine because I personally would call him a quack for telling Michael that he would 'not become addicted'. It is a Schedule III, meaning it has some potential for addiction/dependence though not as bad as a Schedule II which is what Demerol and morphine are (Schedule IIs are the things you keep locked up in a pharmacy). So, yes, it is better than Demerol but not 'safe' or moreover not addictive. Michael was so misled. Michael wanted the IV/IM form which is indeed used for moderate-to-severe pain, and he did indeed only want 2 vials–-obviously in case he had some accident, not for chronic use/abuse. However, the tablet formation of this medicine is for opiate withdrawal, a yucky connotation. Granted, Michael didn’t ask for that one–-again not an addict needing more or seeking a fix. Sad thing is, Suboxone, which is a combo product of buprenophine and naloxone (the opioid reversal agent) is not a 'good' thing to me, either. It is only for opioid withdrawal. A lot of people think the naloxone is in there to keep you from becoming addicted. It isn’t. It is in there to keep people from getting high off the buprenophine if they decide to crush the tablets and shoot them IV. That makes me question this drug’s ability to cause dependence then, too. It is an opioid, too. Lexi-Comp also says that it is for short-term use as it has a 'ceiling effect', which then means of course if you use it for a while eventually the patient will plateau on pain relief and find themselves using more of it more often to try and get that relief again--legitimate pain relief, that is.

I know Michael’s intentions were good, and he so didn’t want to become 'dependent' but I see this as a doctor bullshitting him. I also see it as Michael not wanting to have had issues with Demerol, either. Poor Michael, he knew no better. He just wanted to live.”

Doctors (and pharmacists) are responsible for telling you the truth about medications, especially if one is concerned about addiction. Granted, I have been told that some things a patient is better off not being told, which I really cannot say I agree with that at all. My grandmother and her sister both died from taking medications that led to them developing a rare lung disease. If someone had warned them about this rare event--they could still be alive today or at least not died so young. Michael was obviously trying to help himself stay dependent-free-–but was being duped by doctors--not just left in the dark but lied to. Michael was simply a lay person and most lay people trust doctors. How many others did this to him? How many others lied to him?"

Now onto this:

Karen Faye, a beloved friend of Michael's said in a recent 20/20 special:

"Just before we went on tour for "Dangerous," he had an operation, in order to help the scarring. But he didn't have enough time to heal," said Faye. "So in order to keep going, he started using painkillers, because it is very painful when nerve endings are severed."

"Faye said painkillers "gave [Jackson] the ability to get through" the combination of the emotional pain brought about by the allegations and his already existing physical pain."

If he had to go on tour before healing and was using pain medications due to pain from a lack of healing, that to me doesn't justify him being an addict. It makes me feel he was a victim of the pharmacology of pain narcotics, as pain narcotics are addictive (I prefer to say they cause dependence and tolerance) in everyone. Thus, that does not mean someone suffers from the disease of addiction itself if they become "addicted" (dependent/tolerant) to opioid analgesics/pain narcotics while treating pain, especially if they are having to use them for any length of time. I want to again blame doctors in many situations as they need to be helping prevent this kind of dependence in patients and not looking to just stuff their wallets. Addiction is usually a disease, a genetic-based disease. No one in Michael's family apparently suffers from it and they were all in show business at one time or another--usually another reason (maybe not legit, though) to be an addict. He began using the pain medications for a legitimate reason if it was from pain to his scalp--and he was in fact wearing a lot of hats out in public during that time which to me would seem to maybe indicate he was having issues with the surgery and/or his scalp. So, it seems that a tolerance/dependence to pain medications was from real pain--not for his need to get high, escape, etc. though I am sure the stress of the allegations did not help as they likely made him depressed and depression can indeed cause physical pain as well.

Basically, if not all opioids/pain narcotics have a ceiling effect. This effect likely happened to Michael, while hopping from place to place on tour, and it is now coming back to haunt him with his death as he is now being deemed a drug addict who was responsible for his own demise. Never, ever will I believe he caused his own death. I will fight anyone who claims that, too. There is much more under the surface as to what really happened to Michael, concerning the allegations, the drug use, the law suits, the debt, the lies, and ultimately his unnecessary death of not only his body but of his soul while living, too.

Though off topic, I will firmly say that Michael never asked to be accused of child molestation. He never asked to be labeled as "Wacko Jacko". He never asked to be taken advantage of by so many slime-bags that saw him as an easy way to make money off the fact that he was naive, and once the allegations befell him, he was an easy target much like a wounded animal is to hungry predators. Once the problems began, more of them piled onto others, so many Michael was likely not even aware of many of the problems that surrounded him. There was no way to get out of it. He committed to "This Is It", a tour when he spoke of how tours nearly killed him, and that was the final straw--there was no way he could get out of this dilemma. He either had to die or die trying--he died (though I say was murdered) trying. He never gave up. I mean, look at this crap! He had so many law suits going against him, even one from a lady that claimed he messed with her food:

This is what Michael had to face everyday. He couldn't escape it though he tried his best to live it as best he knew how. I think he tried to escape his life by being surrounded by children--innocence. He lived for his fans and for his children. I will stop now, though. This will lead into more blogs I hope to finish sometime soon...

I know some things in this post are kind of redundant, as I just noticed it while proofreading, but I hope that will only hit some of the major points home.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Propofol Death Cases--Quick Historical Overview

When one looks at previous cases where propofol ultimately caused the death of someone in a residence, though they are few and far between, all were either ruled accidental, suicide or murder. It was already ruled that Michael did not inject himself--that drops the chance of this being accidental or suicide and leaves murder as the only other option.

Case #1: 26 year-old male, registered nurse
Death: accidental death from rapid self-administration of a normal dose of propofol, had abused for years, including hours before his death

Case #2: 38 year-old female, anesthesiologist
Death: speculation that a third-party could have administered it, however given she was locked into the room with the key inside, accidental death from self-administration was favored as cause

Case #3: 24 year-old female, profession unknown
Death: ruled homicide, male registered nurse was charged and found guilty of first-degree murder, sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole

Case #4: 29 year-old female, radiologist
Death: suicide

Case #5: 37 year-old male, profession unknown
Death: self-administered fatality (accidental or suicide not given)

Case #6: 27 year-old male, nurse anesthetist
Death: assume self-administration as had abused previously, found acute pulmonary edema and hemorrhagic pancreatitis

Case #7: 21 year-old male, layman
Death: assumed accidental death, had inserted permanent IV catheters, purchased propofol on eBay

Case #8: 44 year-old female, nurse anesthetist
Death: accidental death from self-administration assumed

Case #9: 26 year-old female, profession unknown
Death: homicide, male nurse was charged with second-degree murder but found guilty of manslaughter

Case #10: 65 year-old male, profession unknown
Death: homicide, female nurse (step-daughter) implicated, was charged with capital murder charges as of May 2010


Case #3:

Case #9: , ,

Case #10: ,

Out of 10 cases found: 7 were accidental/suicide, 3 ruled homicide (one guilty of first-degree murder, one charged with second-degree but found guilty of manslaughter, one charged with capital murder, trial pending)

"At least 38 human cases of abuse/dependency have been published in peer-reviewed literature for the 15-yr period from 1992 to 2007. However, many more cases are probable, because only the most serious appear to have been described. Of the 38 cases, 14 (37%) were fatal. Twelve of these deaths occurred in medical professionals, nine of whom were anesthesia providers. Most of those deaths now are thought to have occurred because of the rapidity of propofol injection which led to apnea and death."

An article by Kranioti says, "Propofol lacks affinity to opiates, benzodiazepines or NDMA receptors and hence does not a have the potential for abuse or addiction than is always associated with the risk of overdose, as in the case of fentanyl or ketamine. Most abusers do not develop a true dependency to propofol since there is no evidence of tolerance, which refers to the need to increase the amount of drug to maintain a given response."

Please keep in mind how many are found to abuse other drugs, including alcohol. I have even heard of a case where a young man found pleasure shooting mayonnaise intravenously (yes, the food) because he "enjoyed the feeling of it in his veins". He later died from this abuse. That does not mean we should place restrictions on mayonnaise. Some people can find a way to abuse anything--that does not mean the substance itself is addictive. Murray claiming Michael was addicted to propofol is bogus. Murray stating that he was trying to "wean him off" is phony. No doctor wishing to treat a patient with insomnia would willingly give them propofol for insomnia in their house with other sedatives and no ventilator, nonetheless. Please keep in mind that Michael was not self-administering this drug, either, as is clearly stated in the autopsy report. Murray admits to giving propofol, too. Thus the question is, why is Murray facing involuntary manslaughter charges when all three homicide cases mentioned had the administrator of the medication charged with murder? One case was finalized with first-degree murder, one with manslaughter (unknown if it was voluntary or involuntary) and one is pending, with capital murder as the charge. Injustice for Michael Jackson is clearly visible with this information.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

The Freak of the Week isn't Michael Jackson--it's Andrea Peyser

How much lower can you go with the anniversary of his death coming up in a matter of days?

My reply to Andrea:

What a BRILLIANT b***h we have amongst us here, one I would take a guess survives on the dead carrion you find along side of the road, picking at them one by one.

Is this what "professionalism" has become today? This kind of garbage? This isn't about writing a story--this is obviously about making "Andrea Peyser" a name. Are you really this desperate? Do you actually think you are doing us any good by sharing your tizzy-fit styled writing with us? Please, spare us next time. I have better things to do with my time than have to sit here and write you in reference to an article that belongs in a dumpster somewhere.

Let's see:
"From California to New York and all the way to Bahrain, folks are engaged in publicly mourning a man who was not a great thinker, leader or humanitarian.'

Really? He apparently was a great thinker, according to those who actually spoke to him and knew him. Did you ever sit down and hold a conversation with him? I pray not. He knew a multitude about the arts, history and literature, among other topics. He had thousands of books--most of which he read. He was self-taught, too. How many books have you read, Andrea? Two, three? As for being a leader, well yeah, he wasn't a president or anything but hell, I would have rather led the music industry with the largest selling album of all-time than to be the President. I would also loved to have shattered racial barriers that plagued MTV in the early 1980s, being the first black artist featured on MTV. Michael's estate also just signed the largest music contract of all time, too. Are capable of such accomplishments? Do you consider yourself a leader, Andrea? Does one need to be a leader to actually be mourned? As for being a humanitarian, I think this has to be the funniest insult of them all. Michael holds the record for donating the most money to charities--over $300 million during his lifetime. You couldn't even fathom what $300 million looks like Andrea, or even a million for that fact. How much have you donated to charities? Do you even know what "charity" means? To say that Michael is not a great thinker, leader or humanitarian shows how little you obviously know about the topic in which you chose to write. Maybe you should do a little research next time. You might be surprised.

I recommend you look up the word "serial" before you use it again as you obviously do not know what it means.

As for Michael's surgeries and skin lightening, yes, it happened. Vitiligo is a very damaging disease. You care to take a stab at all those who suffer from vitiligo as well? Michael wasn't pleased with his looks--he should have been, he was a handsome man who fell for the multitude of insults thrown at him since he was a child. I must say, just from the looks of that little-bitty picture next to your name on this article (and thank God it is small) I think maybe you should consider some surgical altering to your face. Do us all a favor or at least take that photo down and spare our eyes from damage if you can't afford to fix that sour-puss visage of yours.

As for Michael's children, I bet, no wait, I know they have more poise, professionalism and intellect than you. That is saying a lot considering they are 13, 12 and merely 8 years old. You can't go much lower than dragging someone's children in the mud. I suppose you deserve a pat on the back for that one.

It is so believable that you can sit there and call a man a sexual predator when you couldn't lay down one fact proving it. Rather, you presented nothing but libelous remarks about him to try and make a moot point that is still circulating years later for the sake of making the media money. You can't at least pull up one fact that he did it? How about looking at the FBI files? No, wait, no evidence. What about the 1993 allegations? No, wait, not enough evidence to even go through with a trial. The 2005 trial? Like I have told others--go read Aphrodite Jones' book "Conspiracy" to know what really happened to Michael Jackson and why he was accused of such--he was an easy target to make money off of because he was a gentle, misunderstood soul. I debate on whether you even possess a soul or not.

He wasn't the freak, people like you are the freaks because you can't get enough out of damaging a man's reputation, including a dead man's reputation. It shows your desperate attempt at maintaining your pathetic little career you have going with one of the most fabulous papers in the world--the New York Post! Woohoo! Keep at it, Andrea. Maybe someday you will work your way over to the Globe or Sun. Good luck and best wishes.

I have no desire to contact Andrea but others may at: or 212/930/8730
I think I have said everything I would want to say to her directly above.

Was Michael Jackson an addict?

Copyright 2010
Please do not reproduce this information without consent.

The capacity to become physically addicted to propofol has not been firmly established by any literature. Propofol is not structurally or pharmacologically related in any way to other common anesthetics such as opioids (narcotic pain killers), barbiturates (such as phenobarbital) or benzodiazepines. Propofol has no attraction to receptors that the above drugs commonly interact within the brain--meaning that potential for abuse and/or addiction should be limited. It is actually chemically similar to vitamin E and aspirin.

A case report titled Lethal Self-Administration of Propofol (Diprivan): A Case Report and Review of the Literature states, regarding dependency "there is no evidence of tolerance", which refers to the need to increase the amount of drug to maintain a given response. An article authored by Zacny, et al. discusses the possibility that propofol might be psychologically addictive at sub-therapeutic levels in healthy volunteers. However, Dr. J. Robert Sneyd blasted this study for its use of volunteers with a history of alcohol, soft and hard drug use. Sneyd also discussed the biased reporting of the statistics. Furthermore, Jackson was well into therapeutic range and was not using sub-therapeutic doses for recreational use. Jackson was also not self-administering propofol.

Valium (diazepam) is a long-acting benzodiazepine. Ativan (lorazepam) is an intermediate-acting benzodiazepine. Versed (midazolam) is a short-acting benzodiazepine. All the benzodiazepines administered to Jackson are acceptable for the treatment of insomnia. However, other kinds benzodiazepines are typically used for insomnia, such as Restoril (temazepam) which was found among Jackson's medications though this particular medication was not taken June 25th. Concerning insomnia, even though benzodiazepines may be used, IV benzodiazepines should not have been used to treat Jackson since he could take oral medications. There was no need for IV benzodiazepines for Jackson.

There have been rumors that Jackson had an addiction to various benzodiazepines. Rumors are simply that--rumors--and there is no current proof of such an addiction thus far. Jackson had one oral benzodiazepine prescribed to him by Dr. Metzger for insomnia. Jackson had three oral benzodiazepines prescribed to him by Murray, two for insomnia and one, written days before his death, was prescribed to take throughout the day. Information from Table 3A in the autopsy report shows that Jackson did not appear to be a compliant patient--he rarely finished or took his medications as prescribed, including antibiotics which should be finished in most situations. He underutilized almost every medication he had in his possession. For those medication bottles found empty, based on the date the medications were filled at the pharmacy, it is appropriate to have found them completely used. The amount of benzodiazepines remaining and the length of time since being filled/written do not correlate with an addiction. However, Murray's benzodiazepine-prescribing was more encouraging of establishing a tolerance in his patient (with no apparent tolerance) rather than trying to prevent one from occurring.

Even though benzodiazepines do pose a physical risk of tolerance and dependence, it is not common. An excellent article to read is "Benzodiazepine Use, Abuse and Dependence" by Charles P. O'Brien M.D. Ph.D. A link to this article can be found here:

This article highlights the differences between tolerance, dependence and abuse. This article states that benzodiazepines are rarely a primary drug of abuse and that the actual percentage of people who abuse these drugs is very low. There is a major different between someone who intentionally chooses to abuse a drug and someone who accidentally becomes tolerant or dependent from regular use. Jackson did not appear to suffer from tolerance or dependence when he died though Murray was writing prescriptions which could have easily led to a tolerance or dependence to benzodiazepines. Physicians should be at the forefront of preventing tolerance and/or dependence from occurring. Physicians should be monitoring their patients regularly for signs or symptoms of tolerance or overuse and limiting the amount of medications they prescribe to their patients. Also, Murray never mentioned a fear of Jackson becoming addicted to benzodiazepines--Murray said he feared an addiction to propofol only. Jackson reportedly slept the entire night with the use of midazolam and lorazepam and without propofol on June 23rd. This notion could also indicate Jackson had no tolerance or addiction to benzodiazepines (nor a dependence on propofol as previously discussed).

Jackson did not have any organ damage that would indicate long-term drug abuse. For example, hearing loss from chronic narcotic analgesic (ex. Oxycontin) abuse is common. Liver damage is also a common find among drug abusers since the liver is responsible for metabolizing almost all medications. It appears that chronic propofol abusers (abuse over years) may develop hepatic steatosis or a "fatty liver", possibly from the triglyceride content of propofol. Valvular heart damage from bacterial infections and/or certain kinds of skin damage/demarcations may be seen if someone injects medications regularly with needles. Jackson had none of these theoretical or common signs of abuse. It is known that Jackson used narcotic pain relievers at times. Narcotic analgesics are known to cause accidental dependence and tolerance in many patients. Even if Jackson had a tolerance issue in the past, it is important to remember that no narcotic pain relievers were found in the residence or in Jackson's body. Every medication found in Jackson's system were administered to him by Murray, under his own admittance. Even if some dependency issues arose from the treatment of pain, as Jackson admitted to a pain medication dependency in 1993, this dependency seems to have been treated appropriately as all of his organ systems were in excellent condition other than some lung issues that were minimal and not due to any form of drug abuse. Jackson was determined to have had bronchiolitis and chronic interstitial pneumonitis along with scarring in his lungs. These were likely from autoimmunity issues.

Please realize that all of the information above concludes that Jackson was not the "drug addict" the media has painted him out to be--he ended up being a victim of someone else's actions, not from personal misuse of medications. Everyone in their lifetime has at some point misused a medication, perhaps shared a medication they should not, taken a medication that may not have been necessary for an ailment, etc. That does not mean someone is an addict. In fact, Jackson was at intermittent times on very high doses of prednisone, presumably to treat his discoid lupus. This steroid critical in the treatment of immune diseases could have caused him to have appeared unusually euphoric or "high" at times. Individuals without a substantial medical background may not be aware of such effects with a medication like prednisone. Many people do not understand the basis behind drug addiction, what may lead to it, how the physical components of a drug may actually induce addiction/tolerance/dependence or how many find themselves relying on a medication just to have some sort of livelihood. By far, many who take medications in excess usually do so either from accidental tolerance/dependence formation or from inappropriate self-medication of an ailment. Perhaps they are depressed or suffering from an ailment such as fibromyalgia which then is treated with inappropriate medications or substances. Many people who find themselves using drugs and/or alcohol do so from something a physician cannot see--emotional pain. People in general should be more sympathetic to others who may or may not have a drug problem instead of seeing them as below one's self. Jackson may or may not have had some issues in the past, but it is important to remember he, too, was human. He does not appear to have any long-term damage from any sort of abuse of medications and certainly did not have any issues when he died--other than Murray being in his life.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Charles Thomson: One of the Most Shameful Episodes in Journalistic History

My reply:

Please do not be offended with what I am about to say: the only media firestorm before this one that comes to my mind before the assault on Neverland Ranch were the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. To me, this was another terrorist attack only there was one direct victim--Michael Jackson--and it terrorized all those who rightfully loved him, supported him and believed in him. The terror really never dissipates from an attack but the terror Michael experienced should have after his acquittal. It didn't though, not for Michael and not for those who believe in his innocence. We thought justice had been served when he was acquitted. Michael never received justice for the few remaining years of his life. He died bound in the reigns of injustice.

What people need to realize if there had been evidence, whether it be from 1993, 2003 or somewhere in between--Michael would not have been able to pay his way out of something like this repeatedly or even once. He would have eventually been charged and convicted based on real evidence. Child molestation is not a crime that I would imagine people can pay their way out of, not like a DUI or maybe even murder. This is just my speculation, however, not something I can prove. But, hurting a child in any form is likely considered to be the most horrific of all crimes. I cannot imagine 12 individuals, regardless of their IQ or education level, acquitting a man of crimes against a child or children if they believed him to be guilty despite his status. Why should we think some so-called "celebrity factor" would only influence these 12 men and women when "celebrity factor" obviously has no affect on those polled by "People Weekly" that basically found 9 out of 10 individuals believing him to be guilty? There was no ignorance to the facts experienced by these jurors. Ignorance has infected the public at large because the public has failed over and over to stop taking media reports for granted and to actually go look for the facts themselves, to create their own agenda with actual evidence that is not hard to locate if you do a little searching below the rubble of deceit.

The media used Michael to make a profit. It should have been a time of privacy for Jackson, for his family, for the so-called "victim" but it never was. The media raped Michael Jackson for the sake of ratings. After such scandal, why isn't Sneddon behind bars for what he did, or at minimum disbarred? Do you think for one second someone like Mr. Mesereau, an outstanding humanitarian himself, would have put his reputation on the line to defend someone whom he didn't fully believe in?

Why do so many people want Michael Jackson to be guilty? What personal vendettas do they have against Michael? For the media outlets, was it because it would damage their credibility that is already null and void? Is the media ran by a league of sociopaths, with a few exceptions? What about the public? Can they not fathom someone really being innocent and kind-hearted? Is that how warped society has become?

Knowing just the facts Mr. Thomson has highlighted should make people sick at their stomachs when they think of what happened to Michael Jackson and continues to happen to this day. People do not realize these baseless accusations in-effect created a prison-like environment for Jackson who was forced further into seclusion. In the latter years of his life it was not music that kept him in the spotlight, though it should have been, but rather it was this media-generated "weirdness factor" that had been assigned to him years before. Certainly the allegations kept him in the spotlight, too, likely more so than even his eccentricities. In essence, the allegations almost led to him being stalked by the media, hoping they could seize upon one wrong move (or something they could turn into "one wrong move") so they could use him yet again to recreate a whirlwind of bull.

This case goes to show that anything can be turned and used against you, even going as far as helping a child suffering from cancer. Who would ever imagine such happening to someone? Is this where good deeds get us today? Tell me, why didn't 70 sheriffs swoop into the house where Michael Jackson was murdered to collect evidence from what is really a crime scene? Again, we are seeing what appears to be injustice that continues to haunt Michael Jackson even in death.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Jacko's dad: 'I blame my wife for Michael's death'

My reply:


This has to be one of the cruelest things I have ever read in my life!!!

First off why on Earth would someone blame Katherine for Michael's death?!?! Joseph, this is your wife, this is the mother of your children--PLEASE be careful with what you say! To Mrs. Jackson, and I know that she doesn't wander the pages of Facebook but I would want her to know that she is in no way responsible for her son's death--NONE! She doesn't need this kind of stress--she needs strength to be there for Michael's children, to see them into adulthood--something Michael won't get to do because he was MURDERED!

Second, from the interview Joe says NOTHING about drug addiction so how is it all over in this tabloid fodder? Joe has said in the past Michael was NOT an addict!

More information, medical-based information, regarding the LACK of his addiction:

Joseph seemed to talk more about Michael being DEPRESSED than addicted--he never said in the video the word "drug"...or "addict"! Sometimes Joseph did not make complete sense--are we to call him an addict like Michael has been accused for not always speaking so eloquently?? No, of course not, concerning both gentlemen! Joseph appears to say they needed more involvement in his life, to break down that "privacy" barrier. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it was because he was addicted to drugs! That doesn't mean Katherine is to blame!

"But he still vehemently denies the accusations - and looked shell-shocked as he relived the worrying months leading up to 50-year-old Jacko's fatal heart attack on June 25 last year - brought on by an overdose of sleeping drug Propofol and a cocktail of sleeping pills.
Joe says: "I only saw him a couple of times in his last few months - and he looked weak, thin and like he needed to get some sleep.
"He really never had that glow in his eyes, which he had on stage. I didn't know that he was addicted to drugs, but something was wrong."

BOOM! (No) News of the World! Stop putting words into someone's mouth! They are coming up with him being an addict based on Joe's words so how can they sit there say this when the supposed issue of addiction was not even KNOWN?!

This article doesn't even show the complete interview via the video--how much is purely made up?? Most of it, of course, I am sure!

Also, Michael did not die from a heart attack. He died from respiratory depression/apnea. Propofol is not a "sleeping drug"--it is a sedative/hypnotic that does NOT induce real sleep. He had NO tablets in his stomach! Any cocktail in his blood was directly administered by Murray--NOT Michael who was unconscious. Murray admits to giving him ONE Valium via tablet--the other two benzodiazepines were given via IV and/or shot into the muscle by Murray--not Michael. This is not an Anna Nicole case, this is not another Hollywood drug tragedy--this was MURDER with drugs as the weapon because you can turn it into a case like this thanks to ignorance from the media and let Murray off. Michael wasn't paranoid--he was correct in his assumption people were wanting to kill him and yes, "they" wanted that catalog and STILL DO!

"Katherine was weeping uncontrollably and highly upset. But I didn't give her a hug because I was MAD at her crying," snaps Joe, 80, who says he had spent months urging her to get the singer into rehab for his prescription drugs addiction."

How so if " I didn't know that he was addicted to drugs, but something was wrong." Um, then how would Joe be pushing for rehab if he didn't know? DUH--your error NNOTW!

"Joe says Katherine has not recovered from her son's death.
'She is a shell of the woman she was. She has headaches, can't sleep and won't deal with these problems - like Michael she would rather run away.'"

Joe, Katherine will never get over the loss of her son, especially not when she sees stuff like this. How can someone deal with this when the person who did this is looking to serve a couple months if even found guilty, that others who contributed to the death continue to walk about free with their happy lives, and we have people and the media blaming Michael, your own son, for his own demise? I can't sleep from this, either, and I didn't even see Michael's angelic face ever and won't ever get to see it now.

Please realize I am not slamming Joseph for what has been written but rather that what he has said has been taken completely out of context and likely some of it has been fabricated. Would anyone in their right mind want their mother who lost their brother reading this when she has enough heartache and stress to deal with?