Melty Butter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2024
Right. That was discussed at the time (the discussion on the MNPublicRecords thread is very good). This also caught my eye from a post this morning:Late January was the alleged OD, drug test was in late May, hair follicle tests detect cocaine that was taken within 90 days
Even giving Nick the benefit of the doubt and saying that chat was from January 15th, that's over 120 days after the incident.
If the medical incident was because Nick gave his daughter cocaine then 100% he continued dosing her after she overdosed.
(My red.)Hair analysis following chronic smoked-drugs-of-abuse exposure in adults and their toddler: a case report (2011)
- A 2-year-old is taken to the hospital for breathing problems, living with crackhead parents, chronic exposure to crack smoke
- Two hair sample groups for everyone, from scalp to 3cm, and from everything beyond 3 cm
- Toddler: 1,900 pg/mg and 7,040 pg/mg
- Mom: 7,880 pg/mg and 6,390 pg/mg
- Dad: 13,060 pg/mg and 12,970 pg/mg
I've always been suspicious of the often-cited fact that beyond 120 days there is less sign of cocaine. I think it may be more of a "best practices" protocol with testing because new hair growth gleans more accurate results (?). In this case, the testing of the toddler's hair beyond 3cm (probably growth over 120 days) shows more cocaine exposure whereas the parents' show less.