Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: eits
sudden cardiac arrest... not a heart attack.
and what would cause sudden cardiac arrest... while at home alone... at 50?
training/working out preparing for the up-coming concert series?
And he wasn't even obese, inm fact almost to skinny (actually he was too skinny) All you fatties out there, beware.
he had no previous heart problems, from what i heard.
a sudden signal interference/surge to his heart from his brain could have caused it, getting hit in the chest at exactly the right time to cause his heart to skip the wrong way could have caused it, poison could have caused it, od of drugs could have caused it, etc...
a lot of people are asking for a tox screen on him to find out
Are you a chiropractor? First thing to look for would be direct cause, blood lipids, estracellular activity, second would be family history.
And no, a "sudden signal interference" will only cause a stutter, if it didn't then every living human being would be dead before the first reproduced.
I don't know what shool you go to but go the fuck back to grad school.
yeah, i am.
apparently, his heart was perfectly healthy and he didn't have a significant family history. he just had a physical and was in good health.
yeah, most of the time, a sudden interference would be regulated, but sometimes, it doesn't.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7411862&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05...oung-life-is-lost.html
etc.
i'll go back to "grad school" when you learn a little bit more about how the body works or whenever you go fuck yourself... whichever comes first. until then, leave the nerve stuff to me and i'll leave the douchebagginess to you.
If you are going to cite articles then i will expect that they are based on peer reviewed studies, if not, don't bother, opinion pieces and editorials isn't something i'd consider valuable.
I am sorry that i was a bit harsh but the truth is the truth and i know beyond a shadow of a doubt that i am correct.
I could probably produce articles from opinion pieces or editorials that claim that people with no cerebral activity beyond random impulses sometimes are not brain dead (in fact, i know i can) but none of them would have any scientific bearing since they, like your articles, do not portray the truth.
Abcnews, wasn't that the channel that thought that ecdysterone was dianabol?