
The Two Autopsies of George Floyd Aren’t as Different as They Seem - rectang
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-two-autopsies-of-george-floyd-arent-as-different-as-they-seem/
======
rectang
Like many, I've been wondering whether there was any malfeasance by the
Hennepin County Medical Examiner because their report did not attribute
Floyd's death to "asphyxiation". This article thoroughly examines the issue
and barring the emergence of new and unexpected information, puts it to rest
in my mind. It explains in detail why the both the official autopsy and the
independent autopsy are basically saying the same thing.

The article also anticipates that the bogus diagnosis of "excited delirium"
will be brought up at Chauvin's trial — but it was not in any of the
autopsies, but an assessment by one of the officers on the scene.

~~~
eesmith
See also [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-
au...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-autopsy-and-
the-structural-gaslighting-of-america/) titled "George Floyd’s Autopsy and the
Structural Gaslighting of America".

> The world was gaslit by misreporting about George Floyd’s initial autopsy
> report. As concerned physicians, we write to deconstruct the misinformation
> and condemn the ways this weaponization of medical language reinforced white
> supremacy at the torment of Black Americans.

~~~
cicada3301
> As concerned physicians, we write to deconstruct the misinformation and
> condemn the ways this weaponization of medical language reinforced white
> supremacy at the torment of Black Americans

Holy shit. I had no idea science already has become such an ideological
battlefield. These people want to do away with inconvenient findings when
these findings prop up some 'white supremacy at the torment of Black
Americans'.

(Notice the capitalization of 'white' and 'Black' in the quote.)

~~~
eesmith
What "inconvenient findings" are you referring to?

To quote the 538 link: "The two autopsy reports aren’t actually all that
different in their conclusions." So you can't be referring to this autopsy
report, right?

Regarding "ideological battlefield", to quote the SciAm editorial:

> We wish to remind fellow physicians that medical science has never been
> objective. It has never existed in a vacuum; there have and will always be
> social, political and legal ramifications of our work.

What is your point about the capitalization of "white" and "Black"?

We often if not nearly always use capital letters for ethnic groups. We write
"Hispanic Americans" and "Latino Americans" and "Native Americans". The
Wikipedia page at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans)
uses "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-
Americans)" shows about a 50-50 split between "black American" and "Black
Americans." We also write "Hispanic", and "Creole" and "Cajuns".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans)
shows "White Americans", "White Hispanics", and "White" when referring to "a
racial or ethnic group of Americans who identify as and are perceived to be
white people".

While my spot check of "White Supremacy", with that capitalization, is not
used on Wikipedia, outside of titles. The strong preference is instead for
"white supremacy".

Your point is surely not that white supremacists should be considered an
ethnic group, so what's your actual point?

