Okay, I don't agree with you on the grounds that I think you're an arch manipulator of facts, and as in your last incarnation here, will argue which ever way suits you in the moment as long as your opinion stands out as being different from that which is being discussed.
That being said, I can find no toxicology report as such on the forum, however, having trawled through Vanezis' trial testimony he indicates that her blood sample contained 15 ng per ml of Haloperidol. In giving this information Vanezis indicated that he wished to make a statement regarding this, however, the following page which would have contained such, appears to be missing from the upload to the forum, because the following page makes no sense as a follow on to the last sentence. How convenient, what?............however, the important thing to note, is that the 15ng per ml of Haloperidol in Sheila's blood is considered to be within the medium range, not a low range, and certainly not a "virtually unmedicated" range. But, unlike some posters expect, please don't just take my word for it, read the following article abstract "Haloperidol Blood Levels and Clinical Effects" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1586270/
So, to summarize, tests revealed that Sheila's blood contained 15ng per ml of Haloperidol and as the above article indicates this is considered to be within the MEDIUM range, not the "virtually unmedicated" even though her dose had been HALVED and she was due her next injection.
Note For Mike! Any idea where the missing page of Vanezis' court testimony has gone? If you have it, perhaps you could post it. Think it will make for interesting reading.
Sorry but we are still in disagreement. With respect, I am also quite surprised that somebody who has posted on this Forum for years has not read the toxicology report. I read it before I posted on the topic, and it is also on the Forum. I've just searched and I found it in 10 seconds.
For your information, I am looking at the statement of the forensic scientist Mr Allan, dated 12th. November 1985. In regard to Haloperidol, Dr. Allan states that Sheila had 0.55 micrograms per gram in her liver and 15 nanograms per millilitre in her blood.
I say 'virtually unmedicated' in relation to her last monthly dosage of 100mg - which is a lot in comparison to what was in her by the end. We could instead say 'low-medicated' or words to that effect, but it's just semantics. I appreciate that 'medicated' is not a linear concept, but the effect of the drug varies according to the individual and the circumstances. To be clear, I am simply talking about the diminishing concentration of the drug in her body in relation to the original dosage.
The link you provide is not to a full article, but to an abstract behind a paywall. That means we don't know the context and basis of their opinion of what a low or medium or high dosage is. Sheila's level is at the lower end of what the authors of the paper call 'medium' or 'moderate'. Other clinicians may take the view that it is a low concentration.
It is also not clear to me whether "plasma level" is a reference to concentration of the drug or dosage. We'd have to read the article to know. Furthermore, the reference is to plasma not blood - not the same thing. It is likely that a blood level matrix would render a lower concentration. (I accept it is possible that Mr Anderson may have used a plasma matrix to measure drug concentration).
Furthermore, the abstract summary - such as is it - does not make clear what point the article is making. It states in conclusion: "
Only minor differences in clinical responses were noted among the three levels of haloperidol. These results imply that low or moderate doses of neuroleptics are appropriate for many acutely psychotic patients." But what does that mean? What are 'clinical responses'? What was the state of the patients entering the trial? The abstract is saying that someone can be virtually unmedicated and show little difference in 'clinical response' in comparison to someone who is moderately medicated or highly medicated. But isn't that confusing on its face? We'd have to know what they mean by "minor differences". A minor difference to them could be a significant difference to you and me. We need to read the full article to make any sense of it.
The article also does not address the points germane to the issue presently under discussion: which are whether she was 'virtually unmedicated' and whether there is any basis for saying she was sedated, but in any event, the abstract suggests that the article is neutral on the point I make.
Sheila had her last monthly intramuscular dose on 11th. July 1985. Again, in fairness, this was a few days later than I thought. For some reason, I had in mind that her last dose was on the 4th. and the next was imminent. Even so, she was approaching the end of her medication cycle.
Despite your efforts, I am still left in the same position, which is as follows:
(i). There is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. Sheila's medication was tranquilising and is known for having a low sedative effect, though admittedly Halioperidol can have a sedative side-effect, so it is possible she was sedated.
(ii). Sheila was approaching the end of her medication cycle. The toxicology report confirms that Sheila had a low concentration of Haloperidol in her.
(iii). The toxicology report and the surrounding facts and knowledge we have about Sheila suggest that Sheila took illicit drugs, both soft and hard. Both Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Allan say this would have had no effect, but Mr Allan puts it in terms of the cannabis interacting with the Haloperidol, whereas Dr. Ferguson merely says that in his view the Haloperidol would not have been inhibited in its effect by the cannabis. Neither of these experts were pharmacologists or psychopharmacologists. Dr. Allan was a Chartered Chemist and professional toxicologist, whereas Dr. Ferguson was a psychiatrist.
Finally, please refrain from making personal comments and attacks. I have no idea what you mean by "previous incarnation".
