The cardiologist seemed unequivocal, although we know medics disagree. An example of this is disagreement between pathologists on the cause of death. But one thing he said stuck in my mind, which I found odd. He said if you have a 90% occluded artery, the body can have an adaptive response and grow multiple vessels around the damaged area and this can reduce your risk of heart attack.
So, I would like to ask him this: "Are you arguing that the more severe someones blocked coronary artery is, the less your chance of having a heart attack?" His answer just seems wrong. It suggests you want severe heart disease to reduce your risk of a heart attack! He said the vessels can grow for a blockage that happens over time. But what about a blockage that happens more rapidly? Can the body adapt fast enough? Does the body always adapt enough? What about the testimony of previous medics that say 70% or above blockage can lead to sudden death?
Under cross examination, he would not directly answer a question. He was asked that if Floyd willfully got into the back of the cop car, would he be alive today. Instead of yes or no, he answered, "He would be alive had he not been subjected to the prone position etc etc." So the defence asked again, " So if he had gotten into the squad car, he would be alive." He replied, "I think my answer remains the same." It seemed to me that the medic was thinking that if he answered "Yes" to that question, it would somehow implicate responsibility towards Floyd and he would therefore be culpable for his outcome. That was my impression anyway, but I read the tea leaves so may see things that others don't!
