Conrad Murray vs. Doctor #2

I first learned about Dr. Frank Fisher while reading a pharmacy law study guide. I decided to "google" his name and found a lot of information about his quandaries, including his own account of what happened to him. I discussed Dr. Davill Armstrong in my previous blog. I must say, Dr. Fisher's plight has been much, much worse than that of Dr. Armstrong, in my opinion. Whereas Dr. Armstrong is a Texas physician who had his license suspended for some deficiency in his practice of medicine, Dr. Fisher is a California physician--a physician who practices in the same state in which Michael Jackson was killed--and he was charged with murder for over-prescribing opioid analgesics (painkillers). For the record, he did not administer them to his patients personally. His case is in no way similar to Conrad Murray's situation, as you will see shortly.

As of today, 10/25/2010, Fisher's license is active though for 8 years his license was suspended.

Dr. Fisher was charged with not one, not two, not three, not four but FIVE murders. He was also implicated in the deaths of four other people as well. Unlike Michael, who was found deceased in the house under Murray's presumed "direct care"--authorities had to "go find bodies", as Fisher himself put it, in order to charge him with murder.

"In one case, for instance, Fisher was accused of causing the overdose death of a woman who actually had died of injuries sustained while riding in a vehicle that crashed. Another person succumbed to drugs apparently purchased from street sources after Fisher refused to write him a prescription."

Dr. Fisher discusses recalls the former case in his own words:

"Typical of my alleged murder victims was Rebecca Mae Williams, a 37-year-old who had suffered from incurable low-back pain. After exhausting alternative treatments, I had successfully controlled her pain with 80 milligrams of OxyContin twice a day, a dose that had allowed her to enjoy an active life. The day Becky died, she had taken her usual dose before going furniture shopping with her boyfriend. As their small truck rounded a curve, the driver's door flew open, and David, who was driving, fell out. The truck crashed into a tree, and the impact exploded my patient's heart, fractured her skull, broke her neck, and eviscerated her. Yet on the basis of an impossibly high level of oxycodone measured in a blood sample - later found to be contaminated - the county medical examiner asserted that Becky had died of a drug overdose."

I am still trying to understand how he was actually able to be charged with murder in Ms. Williams death. One would think it would be impossible, right? Right. I also say to myself, how could Dr. Fisher be charged with murder in the case above and Murray NOT be charged with it? Why is there a double-standard? I don't want to elaborate much on it but I do know that it was insinuated there may have been some issues concerning insurance reimbursements. Did $$$ have anything to do with why Fisher was so hotly pursued? I do not know and do not wish to speculate but I do know that money seems to always be an influencing factor in the vast majority of things.

I know many keep saying, regarding the possible trial against Murray, that "facts are facts". Facts are facts--but let's not forget how facts can be diluted with lies and misunderstandings, too. Dr. Fisher recalled of the trial he experienced:

"My preliminary hearing was the equivalent of a trial. The lead prosecutor was a career bureaucrat with a reputation for winning elder-abuse cases. His first witness was a family practitioner from a neighboring community health center who served as the primary source of the state's information about pain management. She had already articulated her formulation of the case against me for the local paper: 'The majority of patients were on doses that we had never seen before. Some of the doses we thought were incompatible with life.'

Soon after my attorney began his cross-examination, however, this witness admitted that she lacked even a minute's worth of training in pain management. He led her to repeat her public claim that each patient has a certain dosage of opioid analgesics that will surely kill him.

The trap had been set. Asked to read aloud several lines from the OxyContin product literature brochure, this witness read a statement asserting what all competent pain-treating physicians know - pure opioid agonists have no ceiling dose.

The trap was now sprung. Gesturing to the gallery of the courtroom, which was packed with my patients, my attorney identified the 'walking dead.' All very much alive, my patients began howling with laughter. The state's case had just sustained irreparable damage.

Next, the prosecutor called to the stand the founder of the pain management center at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. When asked about the quantities of OxyContin I had prescribed, the physician responded, 'The absolute numbers don't bother me a bit. I have cases of my own that I can show on higher doses than any patient that Fisher ever had in all the records that I've got.' The witness finished his testimony by stating that I appeared to have practiced medicine in good faith. Later, the bailiff chuckled as he escorted me to a holding cell. 'Sometimes it goes well in court,' he said, 'but never that well!'

Over the next several months, as the prosecution sent an army of investigators across the county to try to unearth evidence that would prop up their faltering case, the hearing stretched out to 21 days of testimony. During that time, my defense didn't have a single bad day in court. Each witness the prosecution called dug the hole they were in deeper.

As the prosecution's case fell apart, multiple incidents of police and prosecutorial misconduct surfaced. A witness was threatened in an attempt to coerce testimony favorable to the prosecution. A conspiracy to violate Miranda rights was exposed. A witness recanted, and the prosecutor was caught knowingly eliciting false testimony from one of his investigators.

During a cross-examination on the final day of testimony, my attorney lured the government's last witness, a police investigator from the attorney general's office, into remarking upon the atmosphere in my clinic. The agent wasn't supposed to have known what went on in my clinic because, until this point, the prosecuting attorneys had withheld the fact that they had sent agents to my clinic to scam for drugs.
After the agent's admission, my attorney walked behind me, placed his hands on my shoulders, and bellowed, 'And not one of them got anything, did they?' The agent just hung his head and muttered, 'Not that I know of.'

On July 15, 1999, the hearing finally ended. The judge dismissed all five murder charges, reducing three to man-slaughter. (One of the manslaughter counts was for a young man who wasn't even my patient, but the judge told me he suspected I had something to do with the death.) The judge dropped my bail from $15 million to $50,000 and told me not to practice medicine until the criminal charges were resolved.'

The point of what I have posted above is to look at what occurred during his trial. There were unqualified experts giving "expert testimony", there were "multiple incidents of police and prosecutorial misconduct" and we see from this that he was charged with murder which was then dropped to involuntary manslaughter.

Now, what you need to do with the information above is twist it around and see the reversal of it to see what I am getting at with this piece. Dr. Murray, no matter how you look at it, conducted no positive actions concerning Michael. Obviously not, Michael is deceased. I can say Dr. Fisher was treating patients who had pain with pain medication--I will not decide if he treated them overzealously or not. Murray was "treating" Michael's insomnia with a deep anesthetic that rendered him into a coma with no way to breathe for himself (on top of three benzodiazepines that can also cause one to stop breathing). That is not treatment--it is homicide.

What I want you to picture is the impending trial that may loom in Murray's future. Our victim here, Michael, is a real victim. He is not only a victim in death but a victim in life. Michael's life was scarred and made into a life of torment by the perjury of others who put him through the 2005 trial that should not have even happened (I will not get into why there should have been no trial now but this can be further explored in Lynton Guest's book "The Trials of Michael Jackson"). Those atrocities, the molestation allegations and now the drug abuse claims, could easily influence how Murray's trial, if he even faces one, will play out. We could see unqualified experts giving testimony on behalf of the defense (remember, in medicine not much is "exact"--people are still debating on whether or not vaccines cause autism). We do not know how badly the prosecution wants to convict Murray--we do not know the Los Angeles' district attorneys who will be handling the case's view of Michael--if they have any similar sentiments to that of former Santa Barbara D.A. Tom "Mad Dog" Sneddon then we can assume Murray will be the victor by far and Michael once again be defamed beyond recognition. So far Murray is sitting comfortably on involuntary manslaughter charges rather than murder charges when his story makes absolutely no sense even from an accidental point of view and, in my opinion, he should be facing strict liability like Eric Cropp and Rapin Osathanondh.

Four years passed from the time Dr. Fisher was arrested until his trial began--this is rather typical. Murray received involuntary manslaughter charges rather swiftly and a possible trial is to begin soon. Are authorities even looking into other avenues as to what happened to Michael or do they just want to get this case over and done? Michael deserves justice--whether you like him or not. If this had happened to your family member who was desperate for sleep so they could keep what fed their children and kept them sheltered (see my blog regarding the AEG contract if this statement does not make sense to you), and all other treatments for insomnia had failed, and there was a critical misunderstanding that a supposed previously-used "safe remedy" was neither useful nor safe, but a doctor chose to utilize it anyway in the most illogical of scenarios and then failed in every way possible to keep them alive when they would have remained alive had simple precautions been available and used--you would be crying out murder and conspiracy, too. Involuntary manslaughter does not say "conspiracy"--it says freak, deadly but minor, accident.

I ask all readers to please take the time to read the sources listed below not only to compare Dr. Fisher's dilemma to the (almost lack of) Murray's dilemma but I also would like for everyone to get a better understanding of some of the patient cases discussed by Dr. Fisher and why he says authorities went after him so aggressively as well.

Sources:
http://www.doctordeluca.com/Library/WOD/WPS7-Fisher/PainKillerFisher06.htm
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-05-20/news/17427801_1_fisher-case-pain-sufferers-patients-with-chronic-pain

Conrad Murray vs. Doctor #1

Dr. Davill Armstrong has been an internal medicine doctor in the state of Texas since 1979. He was previously board-certified in internal medicine before his license was subjected to disciplinary action. He has his own clinic, dubbed Armstrong Medical Clinic, that is located in Houston, Texas. Another physician by the name of Conrad Murray, whom we have all come to know, has been known to see patients at Armstrong Medical Clinic. He resumed his practice at this clinic after the death of his patient Michael Jackson. Armstrong Medical Clinic is not Murray's clinic. Murray's clinic in Houston is Acres Homes Heart and Vascular Institute. I am not sure why Murray has a practice or visiting role at Armstrong Medical Clinic along with another practice in Las Vegas by the name of Global Cardiologist Associates. "Global" seems to be a fitting term since Murray seems to go wherever the wind blows him.

It was brought to my attention that Dr. Armstrong has ran into some problems with his license in the past so I decided to look into the matter for kicks. I have tried to summarize the findings below as swiftly as possible:

Medical Board Order #1:

http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/TMBPublicWebSite/BOARD%20ORDERS/e00/00/89/00008904.pdf

On August 13th, 2004 Armstrong's license was place under disciplinary action by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners. Disciplinary action was sought because in late 2002 he saw a patient referred to as "C.H.". The chief complaint (problem) for C.H. was listed by Armstrong as "? seizures". He noted on the physical exam that all basic vital signs were normal. He diagnosed the patient as having seizures and asthma. He wrote prescriptions for albuterol for the asthma and Dilantin (phenytoin) for the questionable seizures. Armstrong did not follow-up with the patient, determine what the cause of the seizures were and failed to check serum blood levels for the Dilantin. Those aforementioned actions violated the standard of care in his treatment of C.H. thus disciplinary action was taken forth on his practice of medicine.

Due to his violation of the standard of care mentioned above, his practice of medicine was to be monitored for three years by the Compliance Division of the Board. Also, Armstrong was forced to allow the Compliance Division to review his patient records, up to 30 records every 90-day period for the duration of his monitoring. After 3 years, he was to enroll and successfully complete 30 hours worth of courses related to record-keeping and/or risk management.

Medical Board Order #2:

http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/TMBPublicWebSite/BOARD%20ORDERS/e00/00/8b/00008b5f.pdf

On June 2nd, 2006 another court order took place against Armstrong. Recall Armstrong was to be monitored for 3 years. The Board found he again violated the standard of care for 15 patients by "treating only specific patient complaints at each office appointment without completing a history and physical on the patient and without monitoring chronic medical conditions, such as diabetes." He is also said to have violated the standard of care by not documenting enough, failing to provide "preventative medicine and disease management, and failure to evaluate patients for acute medical conditions in each of the 15 patients". He also hospitalized many patients for extended durations without justification.

Armstrong was reviewed by the Center for Personalized Education for Physicians and was found to have judgment and reasoning below acceptable standards as well as gaps in his medical knowledge. A neuropsychological exam was recommended.

Armstrong's license was then suspended.

Medical Board Order #3:

http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/TMBPublicWebSite/BOARD%20ORDERS/e00/00/90/00009000.pdf

On May 29th, 2009 Armstrong asked that his license be reinstated so he could be allowed to practice medicine in order to complete the obligations in which he had to undertake to get his license and practice back. His request was granted under very limited limitations, under the scope of the Center for Personalized Education for Physicians.

Medical Board Order #4:

http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/TMBPublicWebSite/BOARD%20ORDERS/e00/00/92/0000921e.pdf

This order details information from a document of complaints dated on November 23rd, 2009 which discusses multiple alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act along with a rundown of alleged violations of the orders placed against his license. His license is currently valid but only in order for him to meet the necessary requirements to have his license fully reinstated so that he may practice medicine again.

I am not by any means trying to vilify Armstrong for his actions or alleged actions but I feel his plight serves as good comparison against his fellow physician Conrad Murray.

The single Board Order for Murray:

http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/TMBPublicWebSite/BOARD%20ORDERS/e00/00/91/000091bf.pdf

The order states that Murray is facing charged related to possible "non-therapeutic prescribing" that resulted in the death of a patient (Michael Jackson). It mentions that he is part of a "criminal investigation". Could non-therapeutic prescribing qualify as misbranding which is a strict liability action? If so, then why is Murray not facing such liability which should strip him of a defense in his trial? (I will highlight on strict liability in another blog.) I am not sure we could call what he did "prescribing" as he did not prescribe propofol--he administered it against all logic and reason--to a man rendered unconscious and powerless as soon as it hit his vein. He did not give the bottles of propofol to Jackson and say, "here you go, use it as you please."

All that is required of Murray in this order is a) he not administer sedatives normally given by an anesthesiologist and b ) that he not personally administer or prescribe general sedation BUT he may be part of a team that provides such services. THE END. These requirements are valid until further notice, basically.

Though not clearly established it appears C.H., Armstrong's questionable seizure patient that initiated his downfall from the practice of medicine, did not die from his failure to meet the standard of care. Apparently none of Armstrong's patients died from his deviation from the standard of care. Murray "allegedly" did not meet the standard of care either, according to experts in the autopsy report, yet it appears his competency, reasoning, knowledge of medicine and the law are all intact with respect to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners. At least, that is the message I am receiving from them by their lack of what I deem as appropriate action. Murray provided the means to use propofol for insomnia by his own admission though he lied saying that he did not obtain the propofol himself initially (http://febone1960.net/febone_blog/?tag=dr-conrad-murray )--a receipt from Applied Pharmacy in Las Vegas shows he did in fact order propofol at least once. He administered propofol for insomnia by his own admission. This enough is a blaring statement to the medical community that something is wrong with this man and his judgment, be it medical judgment and/or conscionable judgment.

As far as the public can tell Murray failed to keep records of Michael's "care" while he tended to him during the last few weeks of his life. What doctor would want to keep records of his treatment in this case anyway? It would have been a "Diary of Death" in my opinion.

Now to my main point--why is it Murray has not been subjected to the same types of disciplinary actions as Armstrong, or at least anything close?

First, let me say I am by no means going to imply the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners is being paid to let Murray off. I do not think that is the case by any means. I do realize that I do not know all the information here, but I do know a lot more about Murray's "pickle" than Armstrong's predicaments. I cannot help but say that it seems like the actions taken forth upon Armstrong is the Board's way of trying to protect the public from him accidentally hurting a patient. That is a good thing. With what we know based on Murray's own words--should we not worry about what Murray will do to a patient, especially if monetary gain may be involved? In Murray's case it is evident that he has lied, he admits to giving four respiratory depressants to one individual in one night for "sleep" including one heavy anesthetic agent that induces a coma, NOT sleep. His patient died likely due to his actions though he does claim he gave "nothing that should have killed Jackson". I beg to differ.

I cannot help but say--is Murray facing such leniency because of WHO his patient was and what has been said about Michael Jackson regarding both the molestation allegations AND his purported drug addictions, both of which are unfounded? If this were the president who was killed, would Murray still have his license and furthermore would it have been renewed as Murray's was this past August? What if it were Joe Blow? Though highly unlikely, what if it were a homeless man? All of these people should be seen as equal in the eyes of the medical world, especially concerning disciplinary action. None of them are more important than the other. I know it is common to be indifferent when a serial killer is dies but that is just it--Michael Jackson was a kind, caring, compassionate man who had his life and image destroyed by others. I cannot help but say that I feel because of the lies out there about him many are indifferent to his death. There is no evidence that he ever did any criminal wrongdoing to anyone. I have said before that all the events that occurred to Michael were chain events. Everything really started in 1993 when Evan Chandler accused Michael of molesting his son Jordan. Almost, if not every event in Michael's life after that was in some way tied to those baseless allegations. His financial situation was controlled by it, his career was controlled by it, maybe even his medical treatment was controlled by it because of the stress and pain it brought to his life, his image was controlled by it, his joy in life was diminished by it. Michael was a man who most could not relate to on a personal level before the allegations but after the allegations he was turned into a mirage of a man. He so desperately wanted people to relate to him and his way of living. Now people look to his tattered and torn image to judge him inappropriately and one cannot help but think that that automatically gives Murray the upper hand. Not only do the allegations hurt him but what about the drug abuse claims that are swirling?

Michael died from acute propofol intoxication--a drug. When people discuss his past drug use they are adding salt to the wound though some think they are just being "honest" or that "facts are facts". Regardless of facts, those sort of "facts", if that is what one thinks they are, do not help rebuild a reputation which should be the goal of anyone who loves him. We have very few "facts" about how Michael died as it stands and it will likely always be that way. Drug use, especially addiction, is a very complex subject that many do not understand and it is easy to mislead yourself on what you think you "know". I can equate the topic of drug use to the allegations of molestation. Would stating Michael shared his bedroom with children help defend him against the allegations of molestation? No. People do not understand the reasoning and facts behind such a statement. It is likely this statement alone, which was revealed in the Bashir documentary, led to the further destruction of his life in 2005. His statement, like many, were taken out of context and not allowed an explanation. The same principle applies to his drug use or implied addiction. No one currently understands the full reasoning and facts behind his use of medications, either.

People should not be so naive. If they do not think there is a relation between the actions taken forth upon Murray's license and the implied notion that Murray was duped by a spoiled celebrity addict who "demanded" propofol you are sorely mistaken. This is blatantly obvious as it is not Murray's apparent competency, reasoning or medical knowledge that has been questioned, as Armstrong's was, but instead Michael's reasoning is being judged and insulted when he did not have a medical license. He was "crazy", he was "warned"--so what? He was a lay person and a person desperate to sleep who likely been misled before by doctors regarding the use of propofol. The moment Murray bought the propofol and administered it he was approving Michael's mistaken theoretical treatment for insomnia--Murray justified it, he approved it, and he is the one with years of hands-on medical practice under his belt, not Michael. If Michael had bought propofol off eBay and gave it to himself (as one individual did and subsequently died) then we would have a different problem to discuss and blame shifted upon someone else. Murray KNEW what he was doing. We just cannot prove, yet, what his desired outcome for Michael was that morning on June 25th.

This is just the first blog of many where I will be comparing Murray to other physicians who have not been so lucky. Maybe then people will see just how much injustice Michael and his family are being dealt with regarding not only his life, but very much so his death as well, and there is only a slight glimmer of hope that anything will be done about it as it currently stands.

A Plea to the Voices

After hearing this and that on various social outlets today I felt the need to toss this piece together. It went from an angry rant into somewhat of a heartfelt yet eager plea to many people out there that actually have an audible voice for Michael. I would give anything to be his voice. I can only hope that some who are his voice will, after reading this if they even find it, realize what really does lie within their power.


First, this is not an argument as to whether or not Michael Jackson was a prescription drug addict. You are free to believe what you want though as far as I am concerned his autopsy report and the prescriptions at his house seriously dispute such notions. But, when those who knew Michael call him an "addict" or even insinuate such (which is fairly easy to do) in interviews or what not--you are damning him, his legacy and any hope of justice in his death. When I hear or read such information I literally feel like I am being stabbed in the heart. You may think you are being honest and open but is it worth it? Look how many out there are NOT honest and merely using him and his name for personal gain. There are so many lies out there, defaming ones, so why even try to be honest about the very confusing and complex subject of drug abuse when the hint of such is being used by people (ex. the media) who do not care about him to further commit him into a hell he experienced while alive? Murray's defense, in whole if not part, is banking on Michael being deemed an "addict" even though a) propofol is not recognized by the DEA as an addictive drug/drug of abuse, b) it does not cause withdrawal and c) it does not create tolerance--key factors in a medications being addictive. Even though Murray reported no addiction issues to UCLA staff (as reported in the wrongful death suit), Murray later changed things around and claimed in the Las Vegas search warrant:


"Jackson remained awake and at approximately 1040 hours Murray finally administered 25 mg of propofol diluted with lidocaine, via IV drip to keep Jackson sedated, after repeated demands/requests from Jackson." (FYI, you do not dilute propofol with lidocaine.)


This statement is Murray's attempt at establishing Michael as a hardcore drug addict that manipulated and pressured him (yes, poor Murray) into feeding his addiction by using monetary persuasion. Wait, who is the victim here? I thought it was Michael Jackson, the one who was ripped from our lives too soon.


The statement in the search warrant is crucial. Notice the phrase "after repeated demands/requests". That is one of the major tell-tale signs of addiction. Murray knows this of course. However, when most people discuss Michael's previous abuse they cannot name the substance, cannot admit to seeing him take or administer anything and then insinuate his addiction must have been to prescription painkillers which is understandable given he suffered from real physical pain due to differing ailments that required him take pain medications from time to time. Also, it is natural to assume an addiction (or moreover abuse) may have developed from stress he faced in the later years of his life. What people fail to acknowledge in good faith is his legitimate complaint of pain that would have need to have been treated, and the possibility of dependence rather than addiction, being a scenario that may have played out over the years coupled with or without malpractice. There could be other factors, too, that are not even drug-related. Regardless of what may or may not have occurred, there is no reason to even discuss a problem with painkillers when they had absolutely no role in his death. Those medications are irrelevant. Those medications have been irrelevant since June 25th, 2009. What good does it to bring them up? What good does it do to discuss what he may or may not have taken or why? What does any of this have to do with promoting Michael's artist achievements, his humanitarian spirit, his caring soul or his playful personality? Answer--nothing. The general public knows more about the molestation allegations and now drug abuse and addiction claims than they do about his charity contributions of over $300 million dollars and his wickedly funny sense of humor. That is all they will ever know if something is not done and not done soon.


Referring back to the key statement from the search warrant above, Murray was, "keep(ing) Jackson sedated". Dr. Murray--was he awake or sedated? How did he remain awake (and demanding no less) if he was being kept sedated? Maybe I can answer my own questions.


Michael apparently was "under the influence" at times, according to some witnesses, during rehearsals. In Katherine Jackson's law suit against AEG, it is said AEG said Michael was "too sleepy". Well, the only medications that he had apparently been administered were a) benzodiazepines, b) propofol and c) the ephedrine/caffeine/aspirin capsules (aka ECA Stack capsules). Any and all other medications, taken or not, are irrelevant. Remember again there were no painkillers (opioids or opioid narcotics) in his house or in the released toxicology results. Such usage, whether abuse or not, is not relevant to his death which is an ongoing homicide investigation (at least, it should be) but if his purported abuse/addiction continues to be brought up it will be somehow used to justify Murray killing a man who was constantly persecuted and tortured in life for being a child-at-heart. Remember Murray being handcuffed last year? Oh yeah, he was not handcuffed. His bail was essentially nothing. He is enjoying frolics on the beach and pumping iron at the gym yet before Michael died he was supposedly broke. Does his life seem ruined? Michael lost his life due to this man's actions yet Murray is the one who is getting indirectly defended even by those who love Michael. Something has to be done if we ever want to see a shred of justice for Michael. Something has to be done if we want Michael to be remembered as something more than a drug addict, and I hate say it, but also a child molester when anyone who can read can read the information that proves he never, ever did anything like that to any child. He was not even capable of such acts! But, people who do not know him and who cannot see past the molestation and drug abuse claims (or do not want to see past them because those claims turn them away from the truth) will never understand him if all they ever hear about him are comments that assassinate his character and make him out to be something horrible.


Knowing Michael had no pain medications in his body when he died and none in his house (and it seems none written for home use in quite some time), this rules them out as being a source of him being "under the influence", at least, while at rehearsals, especially concerning the last week of his life. If he came out of Klein's office "under the influence" then so be it--he was no doubt having procedures done to his face as the photographs do not lie. Those procedures would have required some pre-medication to treat anxiety/pain. Regardless of what Klein did or did not use, anyone addicted to pain medications would almost certainly not only have a positive drug screen for opioids (Michael's urine and blood tests were negative) but also need to have the medications in the house to avoid withdrawals. Addiction is an ongoing process that requires constant use of the substance, especially concerning opioids, most of which have very short duration of action.


Propofol does not cause one to appear as if they are "under the influence". After awaking, the hangover effects last approximately 30 seconds then there is no signs of drug usage at all. ECA capsules do not make one high. They might leave you anxious, tense, stressed, suffering from INSOMNIA, if anything. That leaves only one class of drugs left to have been causing him problems--benzodiazepines.


Benzodiazepines work in the body in a similar fashion to that of alcohol. They do have the potential of addiction but addiction to these drugs is rare, as is abuse of these drugs, too. These medications, if taken (or in Michael's case are administered by another) in excess amounts they can cause a hangover effect. They can cause drowsiness, confusion and amnesia--some symptoms Michael reportedly suffered from at rehearsals. The effects of benzodiazepines can last hours, depending on the medication. Excess use (or administration) can lead to tolerance and dependence over time. However, given Michael seemed to be exhibiting signs of excess use from these medications that leads me to believe they were in fact sedating him the night he died, contrary to Murray's claim that he was up all night demanding propofol yet he was supposedly being kept sedated while demanding. After all, Murray admits Michael slept the entire 8 hours the night before just on lorazepam and midazolam. So, how did he suddenly fail to be sedated by those to medications plus diazepam? I am not buying it. The medications had an effect on Michael and it was obviously profound enough to be visible at rehearsals.


Let's break down Table 3A from the autopsy report concerning the benzodiazepines:

Michael had a prescription for clonazepam from Dr. Metzger in April. Metzger gave Michael a 30 day supply. Twenty-two tablets were apparently taken during a 68-day period based on the date on the bottle. That seems to be the only prescription for a benzodiazepine written for Michael by any other physician--besides Murray.


Murray wrote for three benzodiazepines prescriptions--not including the vials of IV benzodiazepines he purchased illegally (without the use of his medical or DEA license number) and administered to Michael. The first prescription was for temazepam, filled in December of 2008. Temazepam is a benzodiazepine commonly used for insomnia. It was written for 30 capsules--a month's supply. Michael still had three tablets left after six months. Then in April Murray apparently wrote a prescription for lorazepam. Again, a month's supply of this medication was written for Michael. Nine tablets of that month's supply remained after approximately sixty days had passed. Only days before Michael died Murray apparently wrote for a 15-day supply of diazepam. I can only assume this was the first time he had received a prescription for diazepam unless a previous bottle had been thrown away which seems unlikely. He wrote for him to take 1/2 or one tablet every six hours. Three tablets were missing over the course of four days--he could have officially taken up to four tablets in one day. This is extremely large dosing for a patient though who, in the past, was given benzodiazepines to take either at night or at night as needed only--indicating use for insomnia which in itself seems pretty amazing given Michael's life of recurrent stress. I cannot say with certainty what Michael's complete medication profile looks like. It would seem that what was found in the house was a pretty accurate description of his drug use given the dates on the bottles.


The biggest problem concerning benzodiazepines does not lie with Michael but with Murray. Murray's administration of IV benzodiazepines at night was not okay nor was it ever necessary given Michael could (when awake, at least) take tablets or capsules. Michael had no control over the situation once sedated by Murray by not one, not two, but three different benzodiazepines, two of which were given IV. Add propofol, no resuscitative equipment and a failure to call 911 and you have a dead patient who had no control over what happened to him. You have a case of homicide.


Remember, it was not "pills" that killed Michael. He did not even have one "pill" in his stomach. It was not addiction that killed Michael. It was another human being's actions that killed Michael. I do not think Michel even asked for those medications that night, personally. No healthy person should die under a doctor's direct care. No doctor would "care" for a patient like Murray "cared" for Michael. Not only did Murray provide the medications, he set up the means to give them and pushed them into his vein which put him there seeing everything that was happening to Michael. I mean, people kill others using their cars and what not, but Murray actually used his skills, mind, debit card, hands, equipment and substances to do what he did to Michael. How does that equate to manslaughter?


Many believe others have blood on their hands concerning Michael's death. If you believe that then realize if Murray is not put on trial or found blameless due to the pressures of a drug-addicted celebrity, then all other parties will walk away unscathed as the blame for Michael's death will always, according to the courts, be Michael's fault and Michael's fault only. Surely to God those who love this man do not want this to happen to him. It will either be a chain reaction of justice or injustice with the latter currently the most probable. If a loved-one was shot with a gun and killed by someone else, would it make sense to say, "well, (my loved one) did own firearms, though." No, of course not. A statement like that implies wrongdoing on the part the loved-one when they had nothing to do with their own death. The case with Michael really is no different. He is the victim, not Murray. Michael is dead, not Murray.


I have tried to break this down as much as possible for people to understand because it is literally eating at my core. I am begging people who have a voice for Michael to PLEASE think before you speak. I want people to speak out for him but I do not want the media getting what they want--a martyr who makes them money. Yes, he suffered, but so did the numerous children he tried to help across the world. What I am trying to say is do not feed into the ploy of Michael being another "doomed story", another celebrity that drugged themselves into oblivion from their fame and self-pity. Fame does not kill people. Michael fell victim to sociopathic liars who either lied and/or manipulated him. Do not let them now manipulate YOU into saying something that does not help this precious yet misunderstood man. Please, help him, help those of us who never knew him to know the real him. I am not asking to paint him into a perfect light but there is too much at stake to make statements that do not promote something better than what is being said out there about him now.


~Every person in the United States is innocent until proven guilty though I may seem to speak on the basis of guilt. Too bad the media forgot in innocence until proven otherwise when Michael was forced into a trial that should have never been that ultimately destroyed his career and his life.~

Two Tales of Senseless Death but Justice Only for One

Laura Hope Smith, a beautiful 22 year-old woman, fell victim to a negligent abortionist named Rapin Osathanondh. She passed away senselessly under his "care" in 2007 when Osathanondh administered propofol to her and subsequently left the room, leaving her to die alone. Sound sort of familiar? It should.

Instead of music or dance being synonymous with Michael Jackson in the media, they prefer to equate him with propofol now, a drug administered to him by Conrad Murray.

There are some key differences that I want to point out between Osathanondh and Murray concerning their courses of "treatment", or rather actions. Propofol may link these tragedies--but that is where the similarities stop.

First, Smith's procedure was done in a clinical setting where propofol may be used. Jackson was given propofol in a bedroom. Osathanondh used propofol for short-term sedation intended for a procedure which is appropriate. Murray claims to have used propofol to treat insomnia which is not an acceptable use of this drug, never has been, never will be due to inherent risks with the drug. Osathanondh was inappropriate in his lack of monitoring Smith, via in the flesh and with needed equipment such as a blood pressure cuff and/or pulse oximeter. Osathanondh did not have such devices in his office and left the room to perform procedures on other patients. Murray had such devices in his possession but they were found in a closet in another bedroom--nowhere near Jackson. Murray claims he used the pulse oximeter in the search warrant. There is no excuse for the pulse oximeter being found in another room and this likely means it was not used which defies logic in this type of situation, especially one that would have resulted in a $150,000 per month salary. Murray claims he was monitoring Jackson in person, only leaving the room less than two minutes. This is an insufficient time for death to take place from what should have been a revivable scenario.

Second, this was likely the first time Osathanondh had ever come in contact with Smith, not weeks before, watching her deteriorate before his eyes. He likely did not retrieve his medications underhandedly from a pharmacy out-of-state, failing to use his medical/DEA license to purchase such drugs. Murray had no business ever being allowed to purchase propofol. Osathanondh also likely did not give Smith any other medications which ccould cause respiratory depression. Murray gave four different respiratory depressants in unknown doses over hours to Jackson, this again, being acts that defy logic or even commonsense. Osathanondh also was not forced to care for Smith as has been implied by Katherine Jackson's lawsuit which states AEG forced Jackson to be treated by Murray.

Third, Osathanondh admits his guilt.

Smith's father said of this:
"We do have some satisfaction that this man was held accountable," he said. "He acknowledged his guilt in every way. We appreciate that."

Fourth, in 2008, a year after Smith's death, the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine revoked Osathanondh's license. He then gave up his medical license permanently following the decision and his clinics were closed. Murray is still practicing medicine. His Texas license was renewed this past August, 14 months after Jacksons' death. His license was not suspended due to the state's desire to save "money and resources". This appalling statement can be found in the .pdf document under Murray's license information on the Texas Medical Board's web site.

Fifth, though a delay in calling 911 has been mentioned in Smith's case, the delay was likely not 90 minutes as was the case with Jackson after supposedly being found alive with a pulse (which could be true for all we know, further implicating Murray). Smith was apparently found deceased, a cover-up took place, then 911 was called.

Smith's mother said of the relation in these two cases:
"Laura died for the same reason [as Jackson]: carelessness, criminal negligence and recklessness,” said Laura’s mother, Eileen Smith." I agree to a point with Smith. Both of these cases are senseless deaths, both are victims, both lost their lives before their time. Her daughter did die from all of the above. However, Jackson's case is different. There is a difference between negligence and malice. I believe Smith's case was a case of negligence while Jackson's death is a solid case involving malice and likely conspiracy just based on the information I have briefly discussed here.

That being said, why is it Osathanondh faced a maximum of 20 years for Smith's death while Murray is currently facing 2-4 years for Jackson's death, that is, if he even goes to trial? Why is Murray facing involuntary manslaughter charges only? Why is it manslaughter and not murder? Why is Murray basically being handed a "Get Out of Jail Free" card by the legal systems? Why is it that Michael Jackson's lie and now death is filled with such gross courses of injustice? It is because of this I will continue to fight for him.

My condolences to the Smith Family.

Sources:
http://www.lifenews.com/state5453.html
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090306/NEWS/903060328/-1/NEWSMAP
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/898703/rapin_osathanondh_indicted_for_manslaughter.html?cat=17
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/09/_barnstable_tom.html
http://www.mass.gov/dacape/pr.htm
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/court-delays-manslaughter-case-as-2nd-anniversary-of-abortion-death-nears/

"Doctors speak out about 'pronapping' addiction to propofol/divprivan on the job and at home" --MY TAKE

I have tried multiple times to post my comment to this article written here without success so I will just post it on my blog:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3871392-doctors-speak-out-about-pronapping-addiction-to-propofoldivprivan-on-the-job-and-at-home#

Please understand this article is NOT credible (even though it claims to be at the bottom of the page).

Many medical professionals especially nurses would be livid to hear they are supposedly "napping on the job" when most nurses I know are not even allowed restroom breaks or to take a lunch. Meditation breaks? Seriously? Do you really think medical professionals have time to do that when they must tend to patients many times for more than 12 hours a day? Would that not constitute patient abandonment for a nurse to be meditating on the job?

To insinuate everyone who takes this medication receives a "high" is a gross mistake. Euphoria is not even listed as an adverse effect on LexiComp, nor is this medication scheduled (as all addictive/drugs of abuse are except anabolic steroids which are scheduled strictly to divert illegal use though not addictive). I do not even know if I believe the people who claim sexual inhibitions due to the drug (which can that not be a natural part of awakening after sleep, right?) because thousands of patient have received this drug and do not report such and even if someone has claimed it um, maybe it is not propofol? Unauthorized users do NOT have access to this drug. Have you ever worked in a hospital? It is not a pill you pop!

I do not have stats off the top of my head to point this out but the number of people who have died from propofol abuse or that abuse the drug is a tiny, tiny amount compared to the number who abuse pain killers, ALCOHOL, meth, etc. That point is actually clouded in your article as you mention a doctor here, a nurse there--that is not reflective of thousand of people with a problem, nor even hundreds. It is RARE.

You also failed to mention there is a severe shortage of the drug in hospitals nationwide.

http://www.ashp.org/DrugShortages/Current/

It is not available like candy bars.

People do NOT die from over-injecting 20 mg! People do not die from injecting 200 mg! One standard dosing regimen is 2-2.5 mg/kg. A patient weighs 50 kg. That means they could be given 100-125 mg. Whoops that is 25 mg too much? Hardly. The FEW that have died from propofol have died from injecting it too fast in which is causes cardiovascular collapse by lowering their blood pressure and stopping their breathing. This usually happens while they are alone and thus no one is there to render them sufficient aid. It has nothing to do with the dosage. I have seen a doctor debate on giving a patient 100-200 mg of propofol for a short-term procedure. He requested a bag-valve mask and oxygen on hand in case of a problem.

The elimination half-life is NOT 5 minutes. You are confusing half-life with duration of action. The half-life of propofol, from Lexicomp is:

Half-life elimination: Biphasic: Initial: 40 minutes; Terminal: 4-7 hours (after 10-day infusion, may be up to 1-3 days)

The above information is hard to explain but the drug works in different compartments of the body where it hangs out for different amounts of time. Main thing to notice is the first half-life is 40 minutes, not 5 minutes. This is not a difficult concept to understand for a medical professional. Half life does not correlate with duration of action.

I am embarrassed to say this but the number of residents abusing drugs being only 1-2% is not correct. It is higher than that (when considering all drugs). About 10% of the basic population abuses some substance. It is higher for medical professionals because they have easier access to the substances.

To discuss an article talking about opioid addiction is pathetic. Propofol is not in any way, shape or form related to opioids.

It's "YouTube" not uTube.

The only reason propofol is referred to as "milk of amnesia" is because it is white. A majority of people know this--it is no secret.

I do not believe it has ever been used regularly for the treatment of seizures. It is used safely for colonoscopies and dental procedures as well as numerous other short-term procedures like cardioversions, fluid withdrawal from the body like from the abdominal cavity or lung area, etc. When used in an appropriate setting propofol is very safe.

The information contained here has been grossly twisted as is not a reflection of the information at hand.

Just to make it clear, Michael Jackson if he did indeed ask for propofol, did not want it for euphoria or sexual hallucinations. He wanted it to go to sleep so he could try to pull off his comeback tour and provide for his children since so many had shoved him into a financial hole via horrifying defamation of his character and swindling. He died trying to live.

Katherine Sues AEG over Michael's Death

The court document can be found here:

http://www.psandb.com/articles/mj-complaint.pdf

For the most part I am not going to explain this contract as it is pretty much self-explanatory but I want to highlight some points that should be made.

Page 2:
"But AEG, despite its knowledge of Michael Jackson's physical condition, breached those duties by putting its desire for massive profits from the tour over the health and safety of Michael Jackson."

It is important to note that though Michael died rather healthy besides suffering from a chronic yet mild lung disease, his physical ailments were considered "acute" meaning they were brought on suddenly by Murray's medical "treatment".

"...his (Murray's) sole and exclusive job being to make sure Michael Jackson got to rehearsals and shows."

You do not pay a cardiologist $150,000 a month to make sure someone gets to rehearsals and shows. You pay an assistant some value much less $150,000 a month to make sure someone gets to rehearsals and shows. I understand the point being made is greater than how I am interpreting it but if Michael was in not able to make it to rehearsals then the root of that problem should have been addressed and treated appropriately yet his problems including malpractice and stress/threats which caused him to miss rehearsals were overlooked while he continued to be pushed beyond reasonable limits which further escalated the problems.

Page 4:
See my blog on the AEG CONtract:

http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/07/my-opinion-of-aeg-contract-signed-by.html

Page 5:
Please remember that the AEG CONtract specified that Michael first and foremost was to repay an advancements to AEG--his income was to come second which may hold truth to the claim Michael feared he would come back to London with no money. Furthermore, knowing that the Sony/ATV catalog was up for collateral shows that AEG had a grip on the main source of Michael's income and means of supporting his family, including his children. Collateral is not typically needed for a touring artist according to an anonymous poster on my blog regarding AEG's CONtract.

"In early May 2009, AEG complained to Michael Jackson that he was missing rehearsals and states it was because of a negative health condition related to prescription medications. AEG instructed Michael Jackson to stop seeing and taking medications from his current doctor and to instead start seeing a doctor that AEG would provide."

Who was Michael's current doctor? Prescriptions found at the home include: Zanaflex and prednisone from Dr. Klein, clonazepam from Dr. Metzger and Zithromax and amoxicillin from nurse Cherilyn Lee. None of these prescriptions would alert a pharmacist, nurse or doctor of a serious issue. In turn, the numerous medications provided by Murray, most of which were obtained without a prescription or medical/DEA license number, would be alarming to anyone including authorities.

Page 6:
"The written confirmation stated AEG would provide Murray with Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation equipment and a nurse during his services."

According to ABC news the CPR machines were to be provided in London, not Los Angeles. What was the plan in the meantime, then? Regardless of this request Murray could have had a nurse, AED, CPR machine and anesthesiologist on board but it would not have made a difference as a) you never give propofol in a house and b) you do not give it for insomnia. A CPR machine or AED would be only useful if someone is suffering from a fatal heart arrhythmia (heart beat) such as ventricular tachycardia. Propofol does not cause fatal arrhythmias--it causes people to stop breathing and their blood pressure to drop, usually temporarily. If Murray felt the need to give propofol and multiple benzodiazepines to Michael regardless of common medical sense telling you not to do such then he needed to be able to intubate Michael and have a ventilator or bag-valve mask with oxygen on hand to treat apnea (lack of breathing) and perhaps a medication to combat the hypotension--not a CPR machine.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/michael-jackson-wrongful-death-lawsuit-aeg-medical-equipment/story?id=11014828

From the ABC article:
"The medical supplies in question were requested by Dr. Murray for use specifically in London in the event an unexpected need arose. When asked why these supplies were needed, Dr. Murray said that Michael Jackson was in excellent health but an artist of his stature should have this equipment on-hand when engaging in this type of performance. Dr. Murray did not ask for these items for use in Los Angeles."

A doctor, regardless of specialty, would know better than to give three benzodiazepines and propofol, all respiratory depressants, to a patient especially for insomnia. I am not even sure this combination would be used in surgery. I am not even sure if Michael would know what on earth he was receiving at night. Furthermore, how did Murray intend to supply Michael with treatment in the UK since he apparently holds no license in the country? He would then be paid $150,000 a month to do what exactly given his care would be restricted if not completely barred?

"At the June 8, 2009, meeting AEG demanded Michael Jackson stop seeing Dr. Arnold Klein and stop taking the drugs Klein gave to him. AEG said Klein's drugs made him sleepy and prevented him from rehearsing. AEG demanded Michael Jackson take only the medications given to him by Murray."

I do not know what drugs Klein was giving to Michael while in the office. Klein has admitted to giving bolus doses of Demerol or Percocet tablets to Michael while performing various facial procedures including botox injections and dermal filling procedures to his face and scalp. This at face-value would be considered appropriate use of these medications. Demerol and Percocet both can cause sedation/drowsiness. However, considering home use, nothing Klein prescribed to Michael would cause alarm or concern. Rumors of Demerol and opioid abuse have swirled since Michael died. There were no opioid (painkillers) found in the house nor were they found in the toxicology screening. This is not consistent with an addiction or abuse of these medications. Concerning Demerol, based on the half-life of the parent drug and its metabolites, it had been at least a week since Michael had had any Demerol if not longer which is not consistent with addiction or abuse, either. AEG demanding Michael take medications given to him by Murray was demanding Michael to allow Murray to kill him.

Page 7:
"On June 18, 2009...Murray had been rendering his services to AEG under the May 8, 2009 oral Agreement."

What kind of company bases services on an ORAL agreement especially when $150,000 a month is at stake? What all was contained in that ORAL agreement? Problem with an oral agreement is there is no establishment of proof.

Again a nurse and CPR machine would not deem Murray's "care" appropriate at any time, even if performed in a hospital. The CPR machines were apparently requested for London not Los Angeles.

Page 8:
"Michael had no right to terminate the Agreement (between AEG and Murray)."

Michael was not given the right to direct who provided him with his own medical care when he was an adult of sound mind regardless of apparent times of issues? What does this say to the public, then? What right does AEG have to direct medical care when to the best of my knowledge none of them are physicians?

"Late on the evening of June 18, 2009, Murray attended to Jackson and gave him a cocktail of Valium, Ativan, Versed and Propofol in order to get him to sleep."

Do we have proof of this? What had he given "similar" before? Did Michael even know how his insomnia was being treated given he was being given IV meds possibly against his own will or knowledge? Something does not make sense with this as one needs to know how the propofol was being given. If being given by bolus dosing then propofol was not keeping him sedated/asleep--rendering it basically useless. Also, the prescription for Valium was not even written until June 21, 2009. It may have been picked up that day or at a later date. There is no record of the purchase of Valium before June 21, 2009 according to the autopsy report.

Just based on all the information contained in this document it is an understatement to say Michael was under enormous stress which could have been attributing to his physical issues coupled along with the serious over-medication done physically to Michael by Murray.

Page 9:
The description of Michael days before he died is distressing to say the least. How could a man in such a condition be forced to continue to perform and rehearse? Why did no one take him to the hospital given he was also being controlled and could have apparently been forced to go? In Joe Jackson/Brian Oxman's claim it is stated that Michael began having issues such as confusion, etc. in May and June--specifically correlating with Murray's arrival and "treatment". If AEG was directing medical care through Murray it was their responsibility to get him to a hospital to be evaluated but instead they kept going, kept filming, kept pushing Michael. If they anticipated on him performing in London would you not do anything possible to ensure that your performer was okay (and remained alive) when obviously there were problems? Michael was not only abused but neglected and then killed.

Page 11:
"AEG's control of Jackson's person was further extended by the drugs being administered by Murray, which weakened Jackson's physical and mental health, rendering him vulnerable, confused, and subject to direction. AEG knew or should have known that Jackson's physical health was deteriorating."

AEG should have also known that Michael's mental health had never recovered from 2005 and they were placing unrealistic demands on a 50 year-old man. I cannot believe AEG would have assumed Michael could have performed any shows as he had stated repeatedly he hated to tour, had no plans to tour again and had not toured again since 1997 nor performed in years, either.

" AEG had a special relationship with Michael Jackson in that they were working closely together to put on a complex and lengthy worldwide concert series."

If so, then why was only the London O2 arena named as venue for a lengthy contract? Someone correct me if I am wrong.

"So that it could reap its staggering profits from the Tour, AEG instructed Michael Jackson that he was to no longer listen to his treating physical and to immediately (and without medical consultation) stop taking medication prescribed by that physician."

What medications and what physician? Michael's medications from his home, some of which were leftover bottles from the previous year, were of no concern or alarm! A company has NO right to tell a patient to stop taking medications. Everything Murray did was the problem--he was the root of the problem and AEG HAD to have known that.

Page 12:
"AEG required that Michael Jackson be "treated" only by their employee physician, Murray, who they had agreed to pay $150,000 a month with other benefits with other benefits with his sole duty being to do whatever it took to get Michael Jackson to rehearsals and shows, as well as physically accompany him to those rehearsals and shows. By requiring Jackson to be treated by a specific doctor -- a doctor that AEG was instruction to simply make sure Jackson gets to rehearsals and shows -- under threats to Jackson that it would essentially ruin his career, AEG committed independent negligence against Jackson."

Is this what was supposedly under the oral agreement? This makes no sense asking this of a physician nor does it make sense to expect someone to make it to rehearsals and shows while being over-medicated at night by depressant drugs. If Michael's chief complaint was his inability to sleep then why was a sleep disorder specialist not called in for a consultation? That is what one would do if they cared or wanted their performer to see the light of day.

"The AEG defendants and DOES 1-75 were involved in a civil conspiracy to commit these wrongs against Michael Jackson."

Does this not also appear to be a criminal conspiracy as well?

Page 13:
"During the course of Murray's treatment, it became clear to AEG that Jackson was not doing well at all. AEG did nothing to terminate Murray and instead negligently retained him as an employee, and in so doing violated its duty of care. AEG insisted that Jackson continue treatment with Murray and receive no treatment from other physicians, a further breach of its duty of supervision."

If he was "not doing well at all" then why did AEG not seek treatment by someone else? Murray is a cardiologist and at no time was Michael suffering from heart disease--Murray's sole scope of practice. It makes no sense to have hired him in the first place. Though some reports state Michael wanted a doctor to provide him with propofol this seems to be somewhat questionable, too. Joe Jackson/Oxman's claim state that Murray solicited his services. Klein has stated that Michael called his office still seeking a doctor/anesthesiologist just before he died. Michael had nurse Cherilyn Lee called, not Murray, on Father's Day when he was concerned about his health though Murray was suppose to be his primary (and sole) physician. Murray also did not seem to be clear on whether or not he would be leaving with Michael to London according to him through one of his own infamous phone calls.

"Indeed, AEG instructed its employee Murray to do whatever it took to make sure Jackson attended rehearsals and shows; in other words Murray was instructed not to look out for Jackson's best interests, but rather to do whatever medical procedures were calculated to get Jackson to perform."

Even if Murray was ordered to do whatever to get Michael to rehearsals it does not explain his choice of treatment for Michael's insomnia which any physician would know would eventually kill someone. It also does not explain his apparently abandonment of his patient even if for 2 minutes, his failure to have something as simple as a bag-valve mask available which he should not have had to relied on AEG for, his apparent failure to utilize a pulse-oximeter, his failure to call 911 in a decent amount of time (90 minutes is not decent to say the least), his failure to call 911 first, etc. What right did AEG have in telling Murray how to practice medicine? Would AEG even understand how Murray was "treating" Michael? Regardless, AEG should have known something was WRONG given how Michael appeared at times. It would seem also that if AEG wanted Michael alive and to show up for rehearsals they would have consulted other physicians to tend to Michael as his needs were regarding insomnia and likely depression/stress--two things neither Murray nor AEG were qualified to treat but could have had treated by a qualified professional in less than 24 hours.

Furthermore, AEG should not have been demanding things from Michael and had him in a position where he if he did not do as they said he would lose not only his career but his life.

Page 15:
"AEG did not provide a doctor who was truly looking out for Jackson's well-being and did not provide equipment."

Some equipment could have been provided by Murray himself. A CPR machine would only have been able to have been utilized in a worse-case scenario when such a scenario should have never been allowed to have happened. A CPR machine would only have given whomever a false sense of security.

Page 17:
"For example, Murray used propofol as an agent to treat Jackson's insomnia on an outpatient basis without proper resuscitation equipment or personnel, did not properly administer the drug propofol (as well as numerous other drugs) to Jackson, did not properly supervise Jackson, and did not properly act upon discovering Jackson had stopped breathing on June 25, 2009. Indeed, by some accounts, Murray waited over an hour and a half to call 911 after discovering Jackson had stopped breathing. Additionally, upon arriving at UCLA emergency room, Murray did not give the attending physician an appropriate history."

Regardless of where--propofol is never, ever used to treat insomnia. Just reading the statements above, does all of those events alone sound accidental?

Neverland

On Michael's birthday (August 29th) I finally got to make a trip out to Neverland--my first time ever. I know now that it is technically Sycamore Valley Ranch but that really makes no difference to me--to me it is Neverland now and forever. It was not nearly as busy as I thought it would be though I have heard up to 300 people visit the front gate of Neverland each day. There were about 20 people there when I visited. It is pretty amazing to figure up to 300 people a day make the long drive to Los Olivos just to see the front gates to what was once one of the most magical places on Earth.

After experiencing Neverland and other sites related to Michael I have come to a conclusion and I am going to lay it out right here. What I have to say now I know some will disagree with but I frankly do not care. It is my blog and I will say what I want. We all are entitled to our opinions. I just hope you will listen to me with an open heart and mind and hopefully understand my sentiments. I have actually been working on this blog for months, off and on, but was able to only complete it now.

I have been to many "Michael Spots" in search of a "feeling". I have been wanting to feel him. I have been to Michael's childhood home in Gary, Indiana and surrounding significant spots in Gary and Chicago (http://someoneputyourhandout.com/The_Gary__Indiana_Tour.html). I have been to Forest Lawn where Michael now "rests". I have been in close vicinity to his home prior to him living at Neverland. Nothing, and I do not mean nothing gives you the feeling of being close to his spirit and at peace with him as being close to Neverland and mind you, all anyone can see is the front gate and some trees. You cannot see his house, his pool, where the rides and zoo once stood or probably the most important item for me--Michael's "Giving Tree". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQLfJG1hmcM) I swear, I would give almost anything to climb into Michael's "Giving Tree" and just sit there, thinking about him, connecting with him. That tree is where Michael wrote songs like "Heal the World". It is special. I wish someone could make my dream possible for me but I have fears my dream will remain nothing but a dream when there is no reason for it not to become a reality.

Some believe Michael's childhood home in Gary should be opened to the public. I disagree. The house in Gary is too small, in a tight-knit neighborhood on a one-way street and the house is surrounded by neighbors who deserves privacy and solitude. They are kind and generous to passerbys but 2300 Jackson Street could not handle any form of grand public display. The guard shack at Neverland is not much bigger than the house in Gary. The house he lived in after Gary but before Neverland is a private residence and should remain as such. A museum with his belongings it just that--a building--it is not a home or a place of magic. Forest Lawn is public place to mourn his tragic and sudden death, not a place to promote his legacy.


People love Michael so much, maybe more than any other entertainer to ever live. He would want them to have a place to feel close to him. He would want a place to feel close to them. Neverland was never meant to be nevermore. Michael meant for his spirit to live on forever in more forms than just his music and short films. Even if he had moved onto live elsewhere Neverland was significant to him because so many of his years in life were spent there, his children were born while living there, a lot of musical creation and rehearsing took place there. His belongings were there, and before all the problems that came his way, his heart and soul were there.

I know that when Michael's home was brutally violated by over 70 sheriffs on November 18th, 2003 it was no longer a home but merely a house to him. Throughout Michael's short life others tried to ruin his life for him, and in some respects, they were successful. I do not want the ruin and destruction to continue in death for him but that is what I am seeing unfold before my eyes and at times it just about kills me. No other talented figure has ever had to face such obstacles, such ridicule and frankly such unwarranted hate. What began as petty jokes about his pet chimp Bubbles and a hyperbaric chamber as a sleeping quarters were dwarfed by the molestation allegations that were too much for anyone to experience but especially a man the entire world "knew", an innocent and shy man nonetheless. That pain and humiliation never left Michael but the knife was shoved deeper on that day in 2003 and furthermore during the entire trial during the first half of 2005. How anyone could survive what happened to him in 1993 and what followed I will never understand. I know that pain was something that never let up in Michael's life. How could it? The public at whole failed him when he depended on them in ways only a few can understand.

I know people have varying beliefs in what happens after we die and I respect everyone's opinion on this whether you believe in reincarnation, heaven or nothing at all. But, I would hope and think that once we all die any form of suffering would dissipate. I am not saying that in death we may have no feelings but I would hope that in death the troubles that we faced in life are no longer our troubles in death. I would hope all the pain Michael endured on Earth has not followed him in death or what would be the purpose of us having to die? I want him free from all that, from all the pain and misery and I want to think of him having a different perspective on his life, including Neverland. No matter what we can never erase all the horrible events that transpired upon his life. What needs to happen is people with a conscious need to take a step into his shoes and feel Michael's pain so they can understand him better because Michael has to be one of the most misunderstood people to ever live when in reality he is not that complicated. People from the outside made his life complicated by using him endlessly until it finally killed him. Michael Jackson was in essence used to death. Thousands of people went out to Neverland and had a time of a lifetime and a few, and I mean very few, ruined it for everyone--mostly for Michael. They ruined his life, literally. It goes to show how fragile life really is even when you are strong. People need to understand that, though, all of it. It is not that I want people to go to Neverland and be sad but I want them to want to learn the truth, even if the truth hurts. At the same time Michael had so many joyous moments at Neverland one should get to experience again some form. He had his first Christmas there with his great friend Elizabeth Taylor. Moments like that need to be relived, too, especially.

Michael tried his damnedest to live a normal life (as normal as it could be for someone who needed bodyguards 24-7), continued making phenomenal music but most importantly but I think is best accomplishment in life is reflected in him being a father. Neverland should belong to his children--it was meant to be theirs from the beginning. It will never just be property either--that is evident by the thousands of handwritten notes etched on the stones at the front gate. If sold, whomever buys it will have to deal with the people who will continue to flock to Neverland for decades to come hoping to in some way feel or learn about Michael. All those messages, though I do not agree with writing on property, are there for a reason.



I ask you--what do we have left standing to honor this man? I am not talking about his eternal art but what do we have to honor his life? The Gardner Street Elementary School Auditorium bearing his name was unjustly covered in 2003 (http://facebook.com/UncoverMJ and http://www.mjjsupport.com/uncover/). The Michael Jackson Burn Center at Brotman Medical Center no longer exists. The Grammy Museum no longer has the "Michael Jackson: A Musical Legacy" display. Only other display I can think of that is still available is the "How the West was Worn by Michael Jackson" exhibit at the Autry Museum which is an amazing tribute but it is not enough. There is no "Michael Jackson Museum". His possessions (though supposedly and hopefully none are from the Estate) are being auctioned off left and right by multiple individuals. There is suppose to be a Jackson Family Museum built in Gary but I will believe it when I see it. Gary the town needs revitalization before it receives a museum, in my opinion. Plus again, a museum is just a building to me. It does not house memories, whether good or bad.

"Jackson invited Bob Sillerman, the Wall Street entrepreneur who had acquired Elvis Presley Enterprises, to visit him in Ireland to talk about ways to turn Neverland into a fan destination" (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/23/news/companies/michael_jackson_money_assets.fortune/index.htm). I know many things written about Michael are lies but I want to believe this statement and do believe it. I know people will always discover his music but again, what about his life? I want people to know about his life--all of it. I want them to know the facts and not the bullshit the media spews out there to try and grab ratings and profit. If you learn the truth from the source then you have no reason to find yourself sifting through the heaps of lies. For example, how many fail to realize his bedroom was a two-story duplex and not an actual "room"? People need to know that important fact. It does make a difference.

I have been to two musical artists' homes. I have been to Graceland and I have been to Prince's Paisley Park Studios in Chanhassen, Minnesota. I went to Graceland not knowing much about Elvis but I left having a place in my heart for him. I became interested in his life, his movies and his music and even his death. Elvis indeed lives on at Graceland. It is an amazing experience even if you are not an Elvis fan. Everyone should go at least once because whether a fan or not, in some form Elvis has impacted your life through his art.

I have been to Paisley Park twice--spending a week there each time. Being a huge Prince fan and obsessed with music I could never explain to you how much it meant to me to see his recording studio and almost everything in it. I saw his awards, his certified albums, I got to sit on Prince's custom-designed furniture including two chairs I wish I could have taken home with me because they are just fabulous. I got to see his recording studios and learn why he had so many and how each room produced different kinds of sound when used for recording. I got to see his plaque that certifies him as an Honorary Texas Citizen (Yeehaw!). I got to see the creative world in which one of my musical idols lives and works. Nothing can compare to that experience. The same is needed for Michael Jackson! I know Michael will never be at Neverland again but I so desperately want him to live on somewhere. I want to imagine his spirit running free among children at Neverland. I want him to see joy in their faces once again even if they cannot see his. I want adults to remember what it is like to be a kid and to remember Michael and how he impacted their lives. I know some people got to see Neverland when it was the place Michael intended it to be but so many yearn to see what others got to see in vain. What are those who never saw it to experience? It is bad enough that many of us will never be able to tell Michael how much he means to us or how much we love him whether it be in person, in a letter or YouTube video. We cannot ever tell him how much he means to us. There are generations to come that will want to experience him in some way besides his music and there has to be a better way than the ways (or lack of ways) available now.

I wish people could together learn what Michael really stood for by seeing what his world was really like and not how they imagine it based on the numerous lies out there. Most books and sites out there are full of lies that haunt him. Curious people do not know where to go for information, accurate information as there is more bad than good out there at this time and even some of the good is inaccurate. The world really needs a place to honor him; he was not just another artist. He did too much to just quietly fade away but I fear that is what will happen if something is not done. I am terrified of it. Yes, his music and art will live on forever but I do NOT want the lies and pain to live on forever, too, and for generations to come to not understand. I do not want his children dealing with the lies, either. Neverland could help teach the people and that is perhaps my biggest point in all this rambilng. Something has to STOP the lies and pain by making people interested in his life, in the man behind the superstar.

I know some residents of Los Olivos have complained they are concerned about traffic issues. I do not blame them. I love the peaceful, quiet atmosphere that surrounds Neverland. I am sure something could be worked around this, like a Park 'n Ride could be utilized from miles down the road. Part of the magic of Neverland is the nature that surrounds you so I would not want to see that tarnished. Where there is a will, there is a way.

I know many feel that there are some that want to take advantage of Neverland and the potential it has to make money. I can understand that as many made money off Michael during his life never thinking about him for one second. I would NEVER want that to happen. It would be my hope that Neverland would be a place that would have all proceeds going to his children and the children of the world--given to various charities, children needing medical care, to help feed and clothe children, etc. Michael's legacy while alive was built on helping others on a personal level, especially children, and there is no reason for that to change.

I wish I could physically have a role in making Neverland what it once was--a place of love and artistic creation. I would take care of Neverland as if it were a child of sorts or the Mona Lisa. I somehow ended up with a BA in history though I never thought history was one of my favorite subjects. In reality, it is one of my favorite subjects when the focus is not on wars. I have always felt that things should never be destroyed, be it buildings or what not, because the history is important. I hate to see history erased. I want to see history preserved everywhere on this planet. History shapes our lives and makes us who we are.

Even though I want Neverland back, I am not proposing that Michael be buried at Neverland. He need not be there--just as long as he is somewhere safe--safety comes first. I want whatever he wanted to done for him concerning that.

I know I have repeated myself a lot in this blog but I just want to keep reiterating my points because they are important to me. I guess I am doing such because I am so afraid that nothing will happen because nothing is in my control. I wish I had some say in what happens. I wish I could do more to help Michael. I wish that what I have written above I could see take place with me having a part in it because I would place my heart in it, all of it. I fear the future now but I don't want to fear it. I want to make it--for Michael.