User talk:Libd

Elvis Presley's death
Just for your information. Concerning the death of Elvis, User:Lochdale asks on the Talk:Elvis Presley page, "is there any proof he died on the toilet?" and he falsely claims that "Guralnik makes no mention of it so it might be just conjecture." See. It should be noted that this user, who seems to be an Elvis fan who has a tendency toward supporting only a 'favorable' view of the singer, more than once added false information to the article and talk pages. He is also frequently removing passages from the article which are not in line with his all too positive view of the megastar. Here is what reputed Elvis biographer Peter Guralnick says about the Elvis Presley's death:
 * The only thing that appeared to have been missed, aside from the empty syringes, was the book that Elvis had in the bathroom with him when he died, a study of sex and psychic energy that correlated sexual positions with astrological signs. Warlick found a stain on the bathroom carpeting, too, that seemed to indicate where Elvis had thrown up after being stricken, apparently while seated on the toilet. It looked to the medical investigator as if he had "stumbled or crawled several feet before he died." ... nine pathologists from Baptist cond acted the examination in full knowledge that the world was watching but that the results would be released to Elvis' father alone. ... Francisco announced the results of the autopsy, even as the autopsy was still going on. Death, he said, was "due to cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat." ... But there were in fact at that time no results to report. The autopsy proper went on for another couple of hours. Specimens were collected and carefully preserved, the internal organs were examined and the heart found to be enlarged, a significant amount of coronary atherosclerosis was observed, the liver showed considerable damage, and the large intestine was clogged with fecal matter, indicating a painful and longstanding bowel condition. The bowel condition alone would have strongly suggested to the doctors what by now they had every reason to suspect from Elvis' hospital history, the observed liver damage, and abundant anecdotal evidence: that drug use was heavily implicated in this unanticipated death of a middle-aged man with no known history of heart disease who had been "mobile and functional within eight hours of his death." It was certainly possible that he had been taken while "straining at stool," and no one ruled out the possibility of anaphylactic shock brought on by the codeine pills he had gotten from his dentist, to which he was known to have had a mild allergy of long standing. The pathologists, however, were satisfied to wait for the lab results, which they were confident would overrule Dr. Francisco's precipitate, and somewhat meaningless, announcement, as indeed they eventually did. There was little disagreement in fact between the two principal laboratory reports and analyses filed two months later, with each stating a strong belief that the primary cause of death was polypharmacy, and the BioScience Laboratories report, initially filed under the patient name of "Ethel Moore," indicating the detection of fourteen drugs in Elvis' system, ten in significant quantity. Codeine appeared at ten times the therapeutic level, methaqualone (Quaalude) in an arguably toxic amount, three other drugs appeared to be on the borderline of toxicity taken in and of themselves, and "the combined effect of the central nervous system depressants and the codeine" had to be given heavy consideration. See Peter Guralnick, Careless Love:The Unmaking of Elvis Presley (1999), pp.651-652. Onefortyone 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not even going to bother to refute your constant Ted Wilkes suggestions (I'm not him, there is no connection. Get over it). I'll note that this is what I wrote in the discussion piece: '''Well I supposed it's not something I would be interested in but perhaps it is a big trivia question? Iguess the answer is is there any proof he died on the toilet? Guralnik makes no mention of it so it might be just conjecture. I'm not sure as I must admit it's nothing I've every researched.''' So I am quite open about my lack of knowledge on the area. You bold certain areas, such as drug use, in Guralnik's text despite that fact that (other than speculation that one of Presley's cousins removed drug paraphenalia from the death scene)I have never removed any reference to Presely's clear drug use. Further, just because I have not added any "orginal material" to the article is meaningless. It's not a bad article as it stands. I don't have much to add. What I object to is your obsession with Presley and your use of questionable secondary sources, innuendo and conjecture to suggest Presley was gay or had incestous relations with his Mother etc. etc. Indeed, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on just one article or articles relating to the Presley article. If anyone has an agenda here it is you. Lochdale 03:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)