tv Craig Melvin Reports MSNBC April 5, 2021 8:00am-9:00am PDT
>> yes. >> any mechanical devices or other things being used to help to stabilize him? >> yes. there was a cpr device, which is basically a mechanical device that sits across the body with something that almost looks like a plunger and pushes against the chest to provide cpr or chest compressions. >> so this was on mr. floyd when he arrived at the hospital? >> correct. >> did you ever observe at any point in time that his heart was beating on its own? >> not to a degree sufficient to sustain life. >> do you recall who brought mr. floyd into the emergency department? >> i do recall two paramedics.
possibly one or two other people. i don't remember exactly. >> do you recall whether there were any police officers there also? >> i don't personally recall that, no. >> did the paramedics who arrived at the emergency department give you a report? >> they did. >> do you recall what they said for purposes of treating mr. floyd? >> i do. the report they gave us is that they were called to the scene of someone who was suffering from medical emergency. as i recall, this is what i was told at the time, they were initially called for a lower type of aevent of facial trauma and that was upgraded to an individual in distress. they reported on their arrival, the individual did not have a pulse and cpr was started.
they played an airway device. it's a tube that goes into the throat and can ventilate the lungs. then they gave medications, including epinephrin and sodium bicarbinate, to try to resuscitate mr. floyd. >> did they tell you mr. floyd was in police custody? >> they did mention he was being detained at the time. >> did you recognize either one of the paramedics who came in? >> i did. i did recognize both of them. i worked with one of them several times before.
>> derek smith -- did you know a derek smith? >> i believe so, yes. >> do you recall having worked with derek smith before? >> i do. >> how often? >> several times. throughout the course of my training. >> when the paramedics bring a patient in to the emergency department, is it standard protocol for them to tell you why they are bringing the patient in? what's the emergency? >> yes. >> what the paramedics told you when they brought in mr. floyd, did they also give you information when they brought mr. floyd in? >> they did. they essentially gave the report that i just told you, yes. >> did they say to you for purposes of caring or giving treatment to mr. floyd that they felt he had suffered a drug overdose? >> not in the information they gave, no.
>> did they tell you in information they gave that they felt that mr. floyd had had a heart attack? >> no. >> did you receive any information or indication from the paramedics when they brought mr. floyd in that anyone had attempted cpr on mr. floyd at the scene? >> objection. >> on may 25, 2020? >> overruled. >> i did not receive a report that mr. floyd had received bystander cpr, no. >> did you receive a report that he had received cpr from any of the officers who may have been on the scene on may 25, 2020? >> no.
>> is the administration of cpr right away important for you to know when you are dealing with a patient who has suffered cardiac arrest? is it important for you to know about that? >> it is in the sense that it informs the likelihood of survival. >> what do you mean by that? >> it's well-known that any amount of time that a patient spends in cardiac arrest without immediate cpr markedly decreases the chance of a good outcome. approximately 10% to 15% decrease in survival for every minute that cpr is not administered. >> did the paramedics then tell you anything about the care that they had administered to mr. floyd? >> yes. >> can you tell us what they told you?
>> that they had started cpr and placed that airway device and started bagging the patient as in providing breaths. and then administering those drugs. >> when you talk about bagging the patient, could you describe what that is? >> it's called a bvm or bag valve mask. it's essentially a device hooked up to oxygen on flow to simulate giving a breath or mouth to mouth, as it might be more better understood. >> did the paramedics start something that's referred to as the acls algorithm? >> yes. >> would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what is the acls algorithm? >> acls stands for advanced cardiac life support. it's basically a standardized
way of taking care of patients in cardiac arrest. >> so these are protocols or a checklist process you go through when somebody shows up in cardiac arrest? >> correct. it's a little broader than that. but a big part of it is for folks in cardiac arrest, yes. >> is it to help you to determine why the person might be in cardiac arrest so you know how to treat them? >> yes. >> have the paramedics tried to resuscitate mr. floyd? >> yes. >> did you recall how long? >> the report received was -- we received was for approximately 30 minutes. >> you had mentioned to us just a moment ago that they had administered epinephrin and sodium bicarbonate. would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what are those administered for? >> epinephrin is known as
adrenaline. it's a drug that has been studied extensively. it's part of the standard protocol for acls. the evidence on it is somewhat controversial, but it is part of the standard protocol. sodium bicarbonate is a medication that may provide some buffering of the acidic environment in the blood that occurs during cardiac arrest. that is perhaps a more controversial medication than epinephrin. >> did the paramedics tell you whether they had checked mr. floyd's heart function? >> yes. >> let me ask that a different way. i want to talk to you about two different kind of heart functions and see if you can describe what they are to the jury and how or if they relate to mr. floyd.
the first one we refer to as pea. do you know what pea refers to? >> yes. pea refers to pulseless electrical activity. it's basically a situation where someone is in cardiac arrest. they do not have a pulse, as we previously discussed. and they do have some electrical activity on the monitor. that suggests certain underlying causes that are known to be more common. the most common cause of someone being in pea arrest, the most common bleeding or low oxygen. >> we will talk about those in more detail. was mr. floyd in pea status,
pulseless electrical activity, when you saw him on may 25th? >> he was, yes. >> there is another term i'd like to talk about and have you explain to the jury, asysdol -- asystole. >> what is that? >> it's flat lining. no cardiac activity on the monitor and the patient is in cardiac arrest. >> was mr. floyd in asystole? >> at some point, yes, there was report that at some point he was felt to be in asystole prior to arrival. >> was he -- meaning flat line.
was there any point in time during your treatment on may 25th that mr. floyd was anything other than flat line during your care and treatment? >> for the majority of his time in our emergency department, he was in pea arrest. ultimately, that did devolve into asystole. >> is pulseless electrical activity, pea arrest, asystole, are those conditions of the heart where you can simply apply a shock and potentially bring the patient back? >> no. >> what are what we refer to as shockable rhythms? is there such a thing as a shockable rhythm? >> typically, these are thought of as either tachycardia or fibrillation which are abnormal
rhythms of the heart that are more commonly associated with cardiac arrest, specifically from a heart attack. they are rhythms that you can administer electricity to and shock a patient back into a normal rhythm. >> mr. floyd didn't have fibrillation or tachycardia. >> correct. >> because his heart wasn't pumping? >> yes. in both situations -- it's a little more complicated than that. yes, he was not in v-fib or vt, as we call them. >> do you recall, were there handcuffs on mr. floyd when he was brought into the emergency department? >> i don't specifically recall if they were on when he immediately arrived. it would be unlikely, because he
had the cpr device on. i recall his hands being at his sides. >> do you recall with his hands at his sides whether there were marks on his wrists? >> at the end of the case, yes, after he was declared dead. >> what did you observe in that regard? >> i'm sorry? >> in terms of any indentations on his wrist or markings on his wrist. >> i inferred it was from handcuffs. >> let's talk about the care you then provided once the paramedics brought mr. floyd to the emergency department. what did you do? >> immediately on arrival, we took report from the paramedics. mr. floyd, as we knew him at the time only as an unidentified individual, was transferred over to the bed in the emergency department.
as i recall, multiple things typically will happen simultaneously in these cases. we achieved additional access. i placed a line in his bone in his leg. >> would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what -- >> it's basically a type of iv that goes in through the bone and injects fluid or medication directly into the bone marrow, essentially. it's a type of access that's easier to achieve in someone who is in cardiac arrest. >> did you also go through the advanced cardiac life support protocols? >> yes. simultaneous to that and obtaining blood draw and continuing chest compressions, et cetera, it went through various different things that could be causing this.
good monday morning to you. craig melvin here. we have been watching and listening to testimony in the derek chauvin murder trial. there's a sidebar that is ongoing. that's why we took a break there. chauvin, the officer charged with the murder of george floyd. this is week two of testimony. we were just watching and listening to dr. bradford lange m langemfeld. before his text got underway, the defense argued for more video evidence to be shown but limited testimony to be heard. we are waiting for the most
high-profile witness to take the stand. that's the minneapolis chief of police who fired chauvin. nbc asked the chief what he would say to derek chauvin if he was in the same room with him. the chief told us then they would never be in the same room together until now. our panelists standing by. mary moriarti, the former chief public defender, paul henderson, a prosecutor. paul is a legal analyst. i mentioned that we heard from the doctor -- we are hearing from the doctor who pronounced george floyd dead, dr. langenfeld. he walked through what he remembered from that night. he mentioned one thing -- one detail about the -- we will talk about it after this. stand by. judge cahill seems to be ready. >> exhibit 900.
on the h and the t, which were part of the protocols for advanced cardiac life support, could you briefly explain to the jurors what the h and t are? >> these are common reversible causes of cardiac arrest in individuals typically in pea or asystole cardiac arrest. a lot of these etiologies are perhaps best evaluated through an ultrasound-based approach. i can go through all of these. hypovolemia, bleeding. that's more traumatic. hypoxia, low oxygen. those being the two most common causes of pea asystole arrest. hydrogen ions.
where the ph in the blood gets so low the heart cannot function. low or high potassium. an important electrolyte. hypothermia, very cold. toxins, there's a lot of different toxins. >> that's from poisons to potentially drugs? >> correct. >> fluid around the harlt that -- the heart that can prevent the heart from filling and lead to the heart stopping. tension pneumothorax. it expands to the point where it prevents blood from returning to
the heart. therefore, leading to cardiac arrest. thrombosis, specifically can refer to a heart attack or a ruptured plaque in one of the coronary arteries of the heart. and then pulmonary thrombosis or pulmonary embolism is a blood clot in the pulmonary arteries that prevents blood from flowing from one side to the other of the heart. therefore, leading to a heart no longer functioning. >> you mentioned ultrasound. what is the role of ultrasound in studying or trying to assess the cause of cardiac arrest? >> ultrasound can be used to evaluate many of these different causes. i think people would be most familiar with ultrasound from movies where they look at the baby using an ultrasound device or small probe on the abdomen.
it's the same technology. we can look at the heart directly and see if there's fluid around the heart, for example. we can evaluate for a large right ventrical. we can look for hemorrhage by looking in the abdomen to see if there's bleeding. we can look for evidence of tension pneumothorax. we can evaluate for what's called sliding signs on both sides of the chest that would suggest that the lungs are up and are -- there's no air between the lung and the chest wall. we can use it -- >> the lungs are probably inflated? >> yep. we can use it to evaluate for a large number of these
etiologies. >> you went through the protocols of the h and t. did you have any theories for treatment purposes as to what the most likely causes were for mr. floyd's cardiac arrest? >> i felt that i was able to determine that some etiologies or causes were less likely based on the information that i had both from the paramedics and also the information i was able to obtain from my exam and ultrasound, et cetera. at the time, based on all the information i had, i thought it was less likely that the patient had suffered from, for example, tension pneumothorax. we can discuss that briefly. at one point in the case, i was concerned that he may have developed a tension pneumothorax. i felt it was unlikely. we did, in fact, enter the
chest. >> let's ask another question. >> i will ask another question. >> you were explaining to the jury that you thought it was not likely a cardiac experience. you explained why tension -- >> we created a hole between the chest and the potential space around the lungs. we did not appreciate any large gush of air that might suggest there was air in that potential space. >> was there anything you looked at to determine whether or not the cardiac arrest was likely or unlikely to be related to mr.
floyd having had a heart attack? >> a lot of that is based on the history that we received from paramedics. there was no report that, for example, the patient complained of chest pain or was clutching his chest at any point or having any other symptoms to suggest a heart attack. that information was absent. also, the fact that he was in pea asystole, as i was told on the initial rhythm check, further decreases the likelihood of that possibility. at the time, it was not completely possible to rule that out. but i felt that it was less likely based on the information that was available to us. >> did the ultrasound play any role in the question of whether or not he did or did not or was likely or not to have had a heart attack? >> no, not especially in this case, no. it did not.
>> did you consider the possibility of toxins, for example, being responsible for mr. floyd's cardiac arrest, including, potentially, drugs? >> in the sense it might have informed our care, yes. there was, again, no report that this patient had, for example, overdosed on a specific medication such as calcium channel blocker or any other medication for which there might be a very specific antidote. so in that sense, i didn't feel that there was a specific toxin that we could give a medication for that would readily reverse his arrest. >> what about then hypoxia?
>> hypoxia being, again, one of the most common causes of pea asystole, just in general, i did then, as i mentioned, use the ultrasound to look in the abdomen and did not see any evidence of hemorrhage. there was no obvious significant external trauma that would have suggested he suffered anything that could produce bleeding sufficient to lead to a cardiac arrest. based on the history that was available to me, i felt that hypoxia was one of the more likely possibilities. >> hypoxia meaning oxygen insufficiency? >> correct. >> did you have any other leading theories as to why mr. floyd's heart may have stopped
other than oxygen deficiency? >> yes. i also considered an acidosis. in particular, excited delirium, which is a controversial diagnosis, but it was in the deferential in this case. >> were you able to make any assessments about so-called excited delirium based on your examination of mr. floyd? >> again, the patient had been in cardiac arrest for 30 minutes. it can be difficult based on the examination. certainly, there was no report that the patient was ever very sweaty, which is often the case when thinking about excited delirium. there was no report that the patient had ever been -- that mr. floyd had ever been extremely agitated.
in my experience, seeing a lot of cases of mental health crises or drug use leading to severe agitated states, that is almost always reported by paramedics. so the absence of that information was telling in that i didn't have any reason to believe that that was the case here. >> when you -- how long was mr. floyd in your care in the emergency department? >> approximately, 30 minutes. >> at the end of the 30 minutes, did you pronounce him formally dead? >> yes. >> at the time you pronounced him dead, was he still in some degree in pea or asystole in terms of describing his heart?
>> i think it's probably best to think of these as sort of a spectrum where pea is some degree of electrical activity still running through the heart but the heart's not pumping. eventually, that will devolve into asystole where both the heart is not pumping and then the electrical activity stops as well. at the end of the case, mr. floyd was still in pea but there was virtually no cardiac activity. at that point in the absence of any apparent reversible cause and because mr. floyd had been in arrest for, by this time, 60 minutes, i determined theingful outcome was far below 1% and we would not be able to resuscitate
mr. floyd. so i then pronounced him dead. >> doctor, was your leading theory then for the cause of mr. floyd's cardiac arrest oxygen deficiency? >> that was one of the more likely possibilities. i felt that at the time, based on the information i had, it was more likely than the other possibilities. >> doctor, is there another name for death by oxygen deficiency? >> asphyxia is commonly understood. >> thank you, doctor. no further questions. >> mr. nelson. [ inaudible ]
>> we're going to -- >> they are going to -- they are going to take a 20-minute midmorning break there. according to judge cahill. let's get to our panel. mary moriarti, paul henderson. mary, as i mentioned in the last break, dr. langenfeld is the doctor who pronounced george floyd dead. he walked us through what he remembered from that night. he talked about the information he received from the paramedics who brought floyd to the hospital. this is part of his testimony. >> what the paramedics told you when they brought in mr. floyd, did they also give you information when they brought mr. floyd in? >> they did. they essentially gave the report
that i just told you, yes. >> did they say to you for purposes of caring or giving treatment to mr. floyd that they felt he had suffered a drug overdose? >> not in the information they gave, no. >> did they tell you in the information they gave that they felt that mr. floyd had had a heart attack? >> no. >> mary, that seemed significant to me. what did you make of that portion of his testimony? >> i think it's extremely significant, because you had the two paramedics who were the medical experts in the field handing off a patient who is in full cardiac arrest to the treating physician at the hospital. you would expect that the paramedics would tell the attending physician every piece of information that he needs to know to help save this person's life. they did not mention any belief
that this was because of a drug overdose or a heart attack. so that is very significant information that the jury has now heard. >> paul, the doctor also testified that he was not told that floyd received cpr from a bystander or officers at the scene. how important was that? >> absolutely important. that was one of the things that i highlighted from this testimony, because that speaks to this standard of care, both in terms of what was happening to george floyd proactively and the omission of care. that speaks to the standard of care. the fact that every single one of those officers that was there at the scene did not provide cpr is relevant, not just to this trial but in the subsequent trials we will see in august, because the doctor talked about how we decreased his percentage of survival because cpr was not
administered. this is all the foundation leading us up to the rest of this afternoon which is the use of force and training. it's tied together into what we ultimately heard and the final conclusion with that witness, which was the cause of death. all of this is really important testimony. >> mary, before we heard from that doctor, eric nelson, lead attorney for former officer chauvin, he asked the judge to limit some of the police testimony but allow even more of derek chauvin's body camera video. walk us through what the thinking might have been there. >> i will do that. the doctor actually gave us some significant numbers, which is for every one minute that cpr is not done, it decreases the chance of resuscitation by 10% to 15%. we have a time clock on all of this. you can bet the state will be
using that. if an accused testifies, they are subject to cross examination. one thing defense lawyers try to do is to get out the accused's story on body cam or statements he or she gave to the police. what the defense wanted here was to be able to offer body cam that had chauvin's statements on it so that the jurors could hear his statements, but he would not have to testify and be subject to cross examination. the state objected to that saying that if we were going to get into anything that chauvin said, they had a right to cross examine him. what the judge did is say that if it's something that chauvin said, that is hearsay. it's an out-of-court statement. he would not allow it. it gave chauvin a free chance to tell his story without the risk of cross examination. if the body cam had something about his demeanor or was talking about what the various police officers were going to do
or where they were going to go, that's allowed. the defense really didn't get what it wanted, which was chauvin's explanations for things, without him having to risk being cross examined. >> mary, stand by. paul, stand by. for folks watching, listening perhaps on satellite radio, we are in a 20-minute break in testimony right now. gabe gutierrez is outside that heavily fortified courthouse in downtown minneapolis. gabe, i want to drill into what we are hearing toward the end of the testimony there about asphyxia. you wanted to drill into that point specifically. why is that? >> reporter: craig, yes, that's something we heard right before the end of the testimony when the prosecution said no further questions is when that doctor said that he thought that the most likely reason why george floyd died is due to asphyxia.
george floyd did not have enough oxygen going into his heart. craig, that gets to one of the key parts of the prosecution's argument, that george floyd died due to lack of oxygen, not as the defense says due to his drug use. that's something that we expect to see later on in this trial when the medical examiner testifies on the autopsy report. the defense is going to try to drill down on that point, that this was somehow due to drug use. you heard from the doctor who pronounced him dead right there that he thought at that time that it was due to asphyxia. i thought that was a key part of his testimony. as soon as he said that word asphyxia, you heard the prosecution say, no further questions. should be interesting to see how the defense cross examines him, craig. >> yeah. it did seem as if the prosecution wanted the jury to hear asphyxia as the very end there. we also, gabe, expect to hear from the minneapolis police
chief today. you have talked to him. you spoke to him last summer about then officer chauvin. what should we expect to hear from the chief today? >> reporter: yeah, craig, the police chief, the first black police chief of the minneapolis police department is expected to testify at some point today. during the prosecution's opening statement, they said that he would not mince words. he would talk about that derek chauvin went too far. i actually spoke with the chief last summer and asked him very directly about what he thought about derek chauvin. take a listen to this exchange. if you could look and be in the same room with derek chauvin, what would you say to him? >> i would not be in the same room with him. i refuse to mention his name. >> reporter: he did not mince words there. i should point out, as you know, it's extremely rare for a police chief to testify against a
former officer. we both covered the case down in south carolina in north charleston with walter scott and michael slater. the police chief testified in that trial, but it was for the defense. many observers are wondering what will happen potentially later today as the chief takes the witness stand. he said he didn't want to be in the same room as derek chauvin. he will be this time. >> gabe gutierrez, we wait for the highly anticipated testimony from the chief. let me bring back mary, former chief public defender where all of this is happening. paul butler back with me as well, our legal analyst. paul, let me start with you. to hear the chief of police in no uncertain terms say he had no desire to be even in the same room as his former officer, safe
to say the chief's testimony today will probably help the prosecution significantly. how so? >> one, it's going to show you that the chief of that department is extremely judgmental and in a way that's consistent with the prosecution's argument against derek chauvin. part of what we were hearing this morning was the argument from defense trying to limit those qualifications and those witnesses. he wants the witnesses that are going to come in that are going to speak as experts to be limited. there's no better expert for this police department than the actual chief. the defense doesn't want as much of that information to come in as possible. that's why they had all the sidebars and all of the conversation this morning was taking place outside of the jury and the two sides were arguing over who was presented and how
it was present and limiting documents that would be given to the jury in terms of testimony and in terms of the manual and training documents that all surround this case related to use of force and inappropriate use of force. one of the things that is really important here that i just want to point out, because we are having this conversation now with the medical experts, that even if a suspect is under the influence or suspected of being under the influence, there's a higher standard of care for the restraints that law enforcement must use, especially if that restraint technique is lethal. here is the other thing on top of that. even if you have a suspect that committed a crime and if you have a suspect that you think is under the influence, police departments and police officers are still not supposed to kill that suspect. that's really important. >> paul, it would seem as if
this is at the end of the day perhaps going to come down to a battle of the experts. we heard from a number of medical experts so far for the prosecution. we will hear from presumably medical experts from the defense who are going to somehow try and bolster their claim that george floyd was under the influence or had a heart attack and those are two things that led to his death. if it becomes a battle of the experts, paul, how will jurors decide which experts to believe? >> well, i think there are a number of factors that go into that. certainly, when defense brings in their paid expert to say that these other medical experts are wrong, that has to be a consideration. i believe things will stand out for this jury. the memorable moments from last week when we saw all of the testimony not just from the medical experts and the professionals, but from the community, from the witnesses that saw and observed that
killing and while they were watching the videotape that many of the jurors had not been introduced to before this actual trial. i think that's going to resonate with them. as both sides were asking this jury to use their common sense about what killed george floyd, and now with supporting testimony from medical experts, i think it's going to be more clear to them what they're going to be relying upon. it's interesting to me that this whole case is about holding chauvin accountable for the killing of george floyd while they watch a tape of chauvin killing george floyd on video. it's an open call as to what specifically the jurors are going to rely upon. we are hearing all of the testimony now. i don't know that having outside opinions, outside opinions from the defense saying it could have been one of these other things is going to make a difference in
terms of how this jury evaluates the evidence that's coming in to them. we just never know. this is not the first time that we have clear and/or specific evidence about a black unarmed suspect being killed by law enforcement that did not result in a guilty plea. we are all watching and waiting to see what's going to happen as a result of this case. >> mary, there are a lot of folks watching and waiting to see if derek chauvin actually testifies on his behalf in his defense. do you think that the defense attorneys have made up their mind about whether chauvin testifies or do you think it's a decision that's dictated by essentially how well they think their case is going toward the end of the trial? >> i think it's the latter. you usually watch the state's case to see if you have been able to make any inroads and see
whether your witnesses, if you call any, are making any inroads as well. then you make that decision. which is actually the client's decision, but there would be consultation on that. one issue here though is if they were going to put chauvin on the stand, what would he say? he hasn't indicated -- in many cases, officers testify because they have shot somebody and it was a split second decision and they testify and they are very emotional and tearful and remorseful. still say they had to make a split decision. this is not that case. from what we have seen of chauvin in the courtroom and from clips of body cam, he does not seem to be emotional or show emotion or remorse or anything of that nature. i would be concerned about how he would come across to the jury if there was -- if he had the ability to show some remorse and say, you know, i do believe he died of an overdose, but i am apologetic for my part in this,
that might be helpful, especially if the case is not very good. i think the state had a pretty spectacular week last week. they may be tearing down their case. the judge might feel that as well. he was beginning to say that the use of force experts might be cumulative. >> mary, paul, we will spend a lot of time with you over the next few weeks. thank you both for your analysis, for your insight. we will keep a close eye on that minneapolis courtroom. we will bring you back there as soon as testimony gets underway. also on this monday, health experts warning of another potential covid surge after travel skyrocketed this easter weekend. if that's the case, why are two vaccine mega sites in california about to shut down? we will go live to oakland,
next. we will go live to oakland, next - [narrator] this is steve. he used to have gum problems. now, he uses therabreath healthy gums oral rinse with clinically-proven ingredients and his gum problems have vanished. (crowd applauding) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. people everywhere living with type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ you are my sunshine ♪ ♪ my only sunshine... ♪ rybelsus® works differently than any other diabetes pill to lower blood sugar in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds.
rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration which may worsen kidney problems. wake up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ please don't take my sunshine away ♪ you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today.
some breaking news to report here from that courtroom in minneapolis. again, we get these notes periodically from our producers who are there inside the courtroom and just a few moments ago a note came in according to a deputy there. the deputy says that they have removed the visitor's chair for former officer derek chauvin. they removed that chair from the courtroom because, quote, nobody has used it. if somebody comes they will be putting the chair back in that courtroom, but again, our eyes and ears on the ground in that courtroom are reporting that since this trial has started the former officer has not had a visitor there in the courtroom. so they've taken that visitor's chair away. meanwhile, the cdc just updated its guidance on covid transmission through services. they now say the risk is
actually quite low. moments ago, cdc director dr. rochelle walensky talked about that covid response briefing. >> people could be affected with the virus and the cause is covid-19 through contaminated surfaces and object, however, evidence demonstrated the risk by this route of infection or transmission is actually low. the new milestone, the united states is now administering an average of 3 million vaccine doses every day. in fact, on saturday alone we administered 4 million shots in arms and right now vaccine eligibility is expanding in seven more states to anyone over the age of 16. those states are nevada, new mexico, michigan, kentucky, tennessee and florida. there are now 26 states that are allowing all adults to get a shot, and in the san francisco bay area we have the first u.s.
case of a new covid variant that was first identified in india. this new strain of the virus is two mutations that may make it more infectious. that's the very latest on the pandemic front and that's going to do it for me this hour. andrea mitchell will pick up our coverage after a short break. or coverage after a short break
wait, what did he say? steak! choose better be better and now save when you order in the app. subway eat fresh. re-entering data that employees could enter themselves? that's why i get up in the morning! i have a secret method for remembering all my hr passwords. my boss doesn't remember approving my time off. let's just... find that email. the old way of doing business slows everyone down. with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in one easy-to-use software. visit paycom.com for a free demo.
the amount of oxygen in the blood, the amount of carbon dioxide, the amount of bicarbonate. >> and carbon dioxide levels in this case were pretty high, weren't they? >> correct. >> do you recall what the blood -- the carbon dioxide level was in the blood gas sample you initially took? >> i believe the initial blood gas sample i took was a venus blood gas sample which is less preferable as opposed to an arterial blood gas sample at the time, i believe, it was a venus sample, and i believe the co2 level in that sample was around 100. >> okay. a little over 100, perhaps? >> yeah.
>> and that indicates an exceptionally high carbon dioxide level, agreed? >> yes. >> what would the average, for a healthy person and you did a blood gas sample, what would you expect the co2 or carbon dioxide level to be? >> for a healthy individual without any sort of lung disease you would expect somewhere between 35 and 45. >> and so, mr. floyd's carbon dioxide level was more than two times what you would normally expect? >> correct. >> now the reason that you're doing these blood gas samples is in part to help you analyze and figure out courses of care, agreed? >> yes. and that's the carbon dioxide number we're talking about is essentially, that would be indicative of a person who is
not eliminating the carbon dioxide, right? >> correct. for it to be high in the blood are therefore not eliminating through ventilation or breathing and that points to a possible respiratory problem, right? and that increase in a carbon dioxide from a 35 to 45 to over 100. that takes some period of time in order to climb that high? >> yes, it can happen relatively quickly depending on how severe the ventilation problem is, but -- >> but generally, it could take 30, 40, even an hour to climb that high. >> it could take that long, it could take much less time, yes. >> the use of fentanyl, do you know that to attribute to high carbon dioxide levels?
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on