4 ms·

> For example, the drug info isn't from an autopsy, but what some unnamed UC Davis medical staff told Mitchell's grieving mother, and she relayed to the reporte

by kodah 3y ago

> For example, the drug info isn't from an autopsy, but what some unnamed UC Davis medical staff told Mitchell's grieving mother, and she relayed to the reporter. Kind of, but I wouldn't call that hearsay. If his mother got it from someone credentialed, it's good info. The caveat to that is that toxicology reports can only detect what's screened for. If he were given a research chemical, for instance, or unknowingly ingested one then we'd never know. All of that is not for not though. There's some things to be learned: - if you're planning on doing a new drug or an old drug from a new supplier then test your stuff and start small. If you're messing with hallucinagens then you need a benzo on stand by. - never accept drugs from people at festivals, full stop. - always have a trip sitter that's sober

gojomo 3y ago
If the reporter hasn't received a list of the things tested-for-and-negative, from a representative of the competent institution that did the testing, that's definitionally 'hearsay' in a legal context. Even in a lay context, I'd say that's hearsay from the perspective of both the reporter, and the article readers (albeit not from the perspective of the mother who received the claim directly herself). Your point about only finding what's tested for is valid, and when imprecise assurances are passed from unnamed-medical-tech, to grieving mother, to reporter, it's especially likely relevant details get either filed-off, or embellished. A kind but nondefinitive mention, "we didn't see any evidence of intoxicants" could morph into the far-stronger claim, "they said they tested but found no trace of drugs or alcohol". Note also the UC Davis burn center is more-than-an-hour by medivac from Black Rock Desert. If Mitchell was effectively lost before he arrived (even if not "called"), would any toxicology even be run? It wouldn't change the treatment or prognosis. Also, at least one info page from a peer institution (UCSF) about toxicology screens does not include LSD, MDMA, or many other hallucinogens in its otherwise-detailed list about what might be detected: https://www.ucsfhealth.org/medical-tests/toxicology-screen https://www.ucsfhealth.org/medical-tests/toxicology-screen When I first saw the vague reference to "friends from Switzerland" in the article – without names or any reporting followup to speak with these last pre-incident witnesses – I even thought it might be a sly euphemism for a large LSD dose, given that substance's roots in Switzerland. But seeing that Mitchell had resided in Switzerland, seeing some friends from there becomes the far more credible interpretation. Your summary lessons are great advice!

by kodah 3y ago

gojomo 3y ago

If the reporter hasn't received a list of the things tested-for-and-negative, from a representative of the competent institution that did the testing, that's definitionally 'hearsay' in a legal context. Even in a lay context, I'd say that's hearsay from the perspective of both the reporter, and the article readers (albeit not from the perspective of the mother who received the claim directly herself). Your point about only finding what's tested for is valid, and when imprecise assurances are passed from unnamed-medical-tech, to grieving mother, to reporter, it's especially likely relevant details get either filed-off, or embellished. A kind but nondefinitive mention, "we didn't see any evidence of intoxicants" could morph into the far-stronger claim, "they said they tested but found no trace of drugs or alcohol". Note also the UC Davis burn center is more-than-an-hour by medivac from Black Rock Desert. If Mitchell was effectively lost before he arrived (even if not "called"), would any toxicology even be run? It wouldn't change the treatment or prognosis. Also, at least one info page from a peer institution (UCSF) about toxicology screens does not include LSD, MDMA, or many other hallucinogens in its otherwise-detailed list about what might be detected: https://www.ucsfhealth.org/medical-tests/toxicology-screen https://www.ucsfhealth.org/medical-tests/toxicology-screen When I first saw the vague reference to "friends from Switzerland" in the article – without names or any reporting followup to speak with these last pre-incident witnesses – I even thought it might be a sly euphemism for a large LSD dose, given that substance's roots in Switzerland. But seeing that Mitchell had resided in Switzerland, seeing some friends from there becomes the far more credible interpretation. Your summary lessons are great advice!