Michael Jackson's doctor could be bio-father of kids

Dr. Arnold Klein was Michael Jackson's dermatologist for many years.

Media coverage of all things Michael Jackson is still on turbo speed and will continue to be so until at least some of the many mysteries surrounding the King of Pop are solved, with reporters, editors and paparazzi working for newspapers, TV news and entertainment shows, magazines, and online publications racing nonstop to be the ones to break the next big story.

Citing sources close to Michael Jackson, celebrity gossip website TMZ and US magazine are reporting that Michael and Debbie Rowe are not the biological parents of the eldest children, 12-year-old Prince Michael and 11-year-old Paris, who were born while Michael and Debbie were married from 1996 to 1999.

Michael not being the biological father? Yeah, I could see that. But Debbie? Those eyes...you just have to look at Paris and Debbie's eyes to see that these two muct be genetically linked. I don't know about Prince Michael, however, and the third kid, Prince Michael II (a.k.a."Blanket") allegedly was conceived with Michael's sperm and a surrogate mother.

Rumors about the kids being "too white" to be Michael's offspring have always been present, but that's all they have ever been: rumors. The pop star swore all three of his children were biologically his, but he also insisted that he never had plastic surgery on his face--with the exception of two on his nose "to improve breathing"-- and that his face had changed as a result of puberty. So, unfortunately, we can't believe him.

Today Michael's dermatologist and friend of many years, Dr. Arnold Klein, addressed reports that he is the biological father, telling Good Morning America host Diane Sawyer and Larry King of Larry King Live that "to the best of my knowledge I'm not the father of the children."

In other words, he could be the father.

When pressed by Sawyer and King to give a straight answer, Klein remained wishy-washy about it. "As far as I know, I'm not the father," he said, adding that "if push comes to shove, I can't say anything about it."

Klein's lawyers issued the following statement: “Because of patient confidentiality Dr. Klein will make no statement on any reports or allegations.”

Patient confidentiality didn't stop guru-wanna-be Deepak Chopra from spilling the beans about Michael's prescription drug addiction, going on and on about Michael begging him for Demerol a hundred years ago, blasting "enablers" and doctors who profit from catering to celebrities craving drugs. And you know what? If Chopra was not only a friend but also a doctor to Michael, he could and probably will in trouble for breaking HIPA laws, which are very strict and do not make exceptions for disseminating information at TV interviews on Larry King and Nancy Grace.

In any case, because of the statement and Klein's wishy-washiness, the media is focusing on the possibility that Klein signed a confidentiality agreement prohibiting him to speak about how Prince and Paris were conceived.

But I have another theory: Dr. Klein could have been involved in a relationship with Rowe (left) around the time the children were conceived, possibly with Michael's knowledge.

Debbie Rowe, Klein's nurse, married Michael Jackson and "gave" him to children.

Klein told Larry King that he was quite certain Michael and Debbie had sex, something that forever has been inconceivable for most people who see Michael as an asexual person. Would Michael, painfully shy Michael, talk to Dr. Klein about his sex life? Maybe, but I doubt it. Debbie, on the other hand, who worked for Klein for about 25 years, probably would share some details with Klein, especially if the two were having an affair.

Whether through intercourse, artificial insemination or in-vitro fertilization, if Klein was having sex with Debbie at the same time she was with Michael or any of these procedures were being performed, then there's a chance that it was Klein's sperm and not Michael's that brought into being 12-year-old Prince Michael, 11-year-old Paris, or both.

That could explain why the good doctor is saying "to the best of my knowledge" and "as far as I know."

What the hosts and anchors and reporters and editors should be asking Klein isn't if he's the biological father of the kids, but if he had a sexual relationship with Debbie.

Now, whether or not he would provide a straight answer...well, that's another story.

Alhough Klein appears nonchalant during the interviews, I sense a quiet desperation in this guy. He's lying. About what? I'm not sure, but I suspect it has to do with the potential discrepancy between what he says he saw or knew about Michael--including physical appearance, the state of his health, the meds Michael was taking, Klein's claim that he never saw needle marks on Michael's arms, etc.--and whatever turns out to be Michael's condition at the time of his death.

Michael Jackson died on June 25 after going into cardiac arrest at 50 years old. An autopsy revealed no signs of disease or foul play; however, the results of toxicology tests, which usually take six to eight weeks to arrive, are still pending, so currently the cause of death remains "deferred."

Klein said today that when he saw Michael in his office some four days before he died, the pop icon was in a great mood, dancing for his patients and "muscular." Yet, unconfirmed reports state that Michael was emaciated at the time of his death.

Klein doesn't want to be in the LAPD's shit list of enabling doctors. He blasted such doctors and, when asked, said that as far as he knows he's not in that list, noting investigators have not questioned him.

Don't worry, Klein--they will. And, if you ask me, you're near the top of that shit list.

Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Prescription for deceptive TV drug ads

Photo source: UCLA

This week the Food and Drug Administration said TV ads for drugs and medical devices should avoid distracting images and music that can reduce viewers' comprehension of potential side effects, Reuters reported.

Advertisements also should use similar type styles and voice-overs when conveying benefits and risks, the FDA said in guidelines published Tuesday.

The guidelines follow complaints that manufacturers use various techniques in their widely seen television ads and other promotions to downplay risks while emphasizing potential benefits, according to the report.

Techniques. I wonder if these "techniques" include the super-human speed at which announcers speak when going over the side effects...might experience this or that...dry mouth...constipation...irregular heartbeat...death...

The FDA noted that leaving out or minimizing side-effect information is the most frequent violation, Reuters reported.

The guidelines are not mandatory, however, which means pharmaceutical companies executives will wipe their asses with these guidelines.

The advice covers techniques ranging from the use of contrasting colors to highlight information, the location and timing of risk details and other factors that can influence how well viewers understand a product, Reuters reported.

Prescription drug ads have drawn fire for portraying healthy-looking, active and smiling patients (OMG, I fucking hate that!) while explaining benefits and then rushing through or providing distractions when required risk information is conveyed.

The instinct to kill rises within me when I see some young looking woman with gray hair or older looking woman with great hair (to appeal to all ages) in great shape talking about a chronic, debilitating condition with no cause and cure while throwing a cookout for her big family, having a wonderful time with her coworkers at the job that she miraculously still has, teaching others how to paint (yes, mind numbing pain and unbearable fatigue are truly inspiring), gardening (cuz when we feel "better" we garden vs. washing our hair or changing our sheets after weeks of not being able to), enjoying the outdoors with the grandchildren (cuz we love life), climbing on the 100-year-old Trolley to tour the city (cuz our bodies are well equipped for the unpredictable), meeting a friend (cuz we have so many left) for a lovely lunch (cuz we can eat anything we want anytime we want it), going to the museum (cuz we have the stamina to stand and walk around for hours), talking a long walk holding hands with the bubbly husband (uh huh) as the sun sets...all in one day--morning 'till night.

Are you fucking kidding me?!

If that were possible, who would need the fucking pill being advertised?

Jeez...

At a congressional hearing last year, a Schering-Plough Corp ad for allergy drug Nasonex drew criticism for featuring a bee that flew around during a description of side effects but simply hovered while benefits were explained, Reuters reported.

I've seen that stupid bee ad. Ridiculous.

In the new guidelines, the FDA said busy scenes, frequent scene changes (you mean like the all-day-long excursion to downtown and all its entertainment options the carefree fibro patient takes?) and moving camera angles "can misleadingly minimize the risks of the product being promoted by detracting from the audience's comprehension."

No way. Really?

Yes, I'm cynical.

You would be too if you spent five minutes in my body.

The FDA also warned against speeding up an announcer's description of risks (the high-speed car-dealership talk).

"If risk information is considerably more difficult to hear and process than benefit information because it is presented at a much faster pace, the piece will not convey an accurate impression," the FDA said.

I wonder how many millions of dollars of taxpayer money the FDA spent in studies and research to come to that shocking conclusion.

Drug companies "remain committed to producing responsible, balanced promotional materials" (responsible and balanced my ass) and have adopted voluntary (nonexistent) guidelines that say risks "should be presented in clear, understandable language [if you record the ad and play it back at half the speed] without distraction," said Ken Johnson, a spokesman (whore) for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Reuters reported (with the exception of all the stuff in parenthesis--that's me). The group represents Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline PLC and other drugmakers.

Blow me.

Sources: Reuters
Copyright © 2009