Talk:Death of Gloria Ramirez

The DMSO issue

This DMSO section seems highly implausible. What would cause the DMSO in her blood to react with the oxygen in her lungs to form dimethyl sulfate? Is this reaction spontaneously occurring? The author also wants us to believe that evaporation at room temperature of a chemical whose boiling point is 370 C would produce enough gas to affect several people in a large room. This explanation seems to violate even my meager understanding of chemistry. Coupled with the fact that it lacks a source, this article seems highly dubious. Is there anyone that knows more about this case and can provide a source and better explanation of this DMSO theory? Terron (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. The entire DMSO section is totally ludicrous. "DMSO is relatively harmless, but with one oxygen atom added, it becomes dimethyl sulfone, But now add two oxygen atoms to dimethyl sulfone it becomes dimethyl sulfate." Really? Water is two atoms away from an explosive mix of pure oxygen and hydrogen gas, but you don't see lakes spontaneously exploding. Provide a plausible reaction, or this statement is totally useless. The rest of it is a weak chain of "Somehow the blood becomes supersaturated with DMSO" and "Somehow it turns into dimethyl sulfone" and "somehow it became airborne". Combined with a complete lack of citations, I am radically altering this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.97.72 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

true you don't see lakes exploding, but how often does one see pure oxygen pumped into a lake in the open air? On the other hand within the enclosed environment of a hospital emergency room where pure oxygen is often present in compressed form it could be far more likely that a conversion from dimethyl sulfone to dimethyl sulfate could potentially occur. Given that the scenario has passed a peer review process amongst experts in the field I have a far greater confidence in believing the opinions of those testing this theory than someone who admittedly has a limited understanding of chemistry who likens the possibility to a scenario of a lake exploding due to oxygen conversion of lake water 50.47.235.231 (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I agreed until I read the discovery article. They make an excellent case. 76.105.183.62 (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Terron: Please see the technical references added to the main article. The boiling point of a chemical compound, although related, is less important in this case than the material’s vapor pressure at ambient temperature. As for dimethyl sulfate, an oily liquid at room temperature, its vapor pressure is greater than that of (for example) naphthalene (mothballs). As most people can readily detect a presence of mothballs in their proximity, and only microgram to milligram quantities of dimethyl sulfate were necessary for the Riverside incident, the postulated toxic vapor for the ER insult would seem not to be a problem.

Response to Unsigned: Before you pass judgment on anything chemical, you would do well to gain at least some rudimentary comprehension of chemistry, chemical properties, and chemical reactions. Based on this example of your understanding, you would also be strongly advised to refrain from editing anything in this area – or at least remaining anonymous. What’s true is that if you add an oxygen atom to (liquid) DMSO via a suitable oxidation reaction, you get (solid) dimethyl sulfone, popular as a cutting agent for street drugs among other uses. If you further add another oxygen atom, you get (liquid) dimethyl sulfate, a deadly poisonous substance with measured LD₅₀ values and myriad warning labels. So, yes, single-atom changes in chemistry are known to alter many physical and chemical properties of matter, in this case going from an ingestible substance to a toxin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.11 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello? This woman had cancer. Chemotherapy does monstrous things to a person's biological chemistry. Even after you stop chemo, it stays in your system for some time. This could have been some reaction/combination of the chemo with the DMSO. Has anyone put forth that idea, or am I completely off base? --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ramirez was described by those directly involved in the case as a noncompliant patient with terminal cancer. Conventional chemotherapy was not part of her medical history. However, there were rumours (only) at the time that she may have made trips to Mexico for laetrile or other unconventional treatment(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.251.139 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm ignorant of chemistry, but this article now seems to be self-contradictory. First, "However, [the Livermore scientists] were unable to put forth any possible reaction that could have transformed the one to the other, much less a reaction that could realistically take place within a human body." Yet later, "The first [Livermore] paper was very technically detailed and did, in fact, give two potential chemical reaction mechanisms that may possibly have formed dimethyl sulfate from dimethyl sulfoxide and dimethyl sulfone precursors." So, did it or didn't it describe potential reactions? I guess I could read the paper, but I don't really care to. S. Ugarte (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to read the actual evidence put forth you're criticisms and doubt in the validity is totally irrelevant. As you stated, you are completely ignorant to chemistry and therefore have nothing of relevance to add or argue. Either accept what you do not understand and refrain from disputing based on nothing, or educate yourself on what is actually being presented, learn the facts about how the chemistry may or may not be possible, then comment only after you have sufficiently understood the matter at hand. This is a serious problem in our culture when people will dispute what is being researched or even established facts based only on biases they have that are not even factual or relevant. This sort of behavior causes unnecessary confusion among the general public and sews deep mistrust in science and long held scientific understanding which may lead to dangerous ignorance towards well established facts that keep people safe. 50.47.235.231 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted an assertion that the DMSO4 would have completely reverted to DMSO by the time the hazmat team showed up because it has a 12-hour half-life. Based on the Discovery article, the team showed up at 11pm, less than three hours after Ramirez was admitted. Assuming this is true, only a small fraction, about 15%, of the DMSO4 would have converted to DMSO, and hence would have been detectable if it was present and tested for. Martin Blank (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The oxidation of the highly stable DMSO2 to DMSO4 is impossible. DMSO2 is also being used as a health supplement. The reaction of DMSO to DMSO4 by oxygen or air has also not been observed. The references about this need to be replaced by peer reviewed refs, see WP:MEDRS. It is likely that then little is left over from the theory. There is no room for synthesis from various popular/press refs. It is more "Believe it or not: Cow with two heads foretells future", "Abominable snowman sightings in Appalachia", etc. 70.137.145.5 (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the funniest comment on here, since that reference is from a peer reviewed paper. 2A01:4B00:8786:D00:7224:CD5:B8CC:3A69 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that you are replying to an 11-year-old comment that was made in reference to the article as was written at that time and not in its current state. Photos of Japan (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad time signatures

She was admitted at 8:15, was sedated with meds and when she failed to respond to treatment they began defibrillating. Later in the article it says she died at 8:50, after 45 minutes of CPR and defibrillation. So basically 10 minutes before she arrived at the hospital she was being ressucitated and then once she arrived they sedated her and began defibrillating. --Carbonrodney (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the timeline does not make any sense MarmotteiNoZ 23:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Law & Order

This is a sad and bizarre story, but I think there was an episode of Law & Order inspired by this. It opened up with a woman dying in the hospital. The staff was trying to save her when they noticed an odd smell. The nurse became short of breath and passed out while stating that the smell was coming from the patient. They evacuated and all that and summoned the police. Jerry Orbach played one officer and I think Benjamin Bratt played the other one. The doctor explained that the woman smelled like cyanide, which he described as smelling like dirty sweat socks. Orbach told him, "I thought it smelled like bitter almonds," and the doctor replied, "Either one." Someone described the woman as having "the breath of death". It turned out that the woman had been poisoned and the nurse(s) who had passed out had fainted due to panic. That solved that mystery, but then they had to discover who had killed the woman and why. Is this sounding familiar to anybody? As far as the discussions above, I know something about chemicals, but I'm not an expert. I can't provide any meaningful input, but here's an old poem you might enjoy. "We all remember Johnny, but Johnny is no more/'Cause what he thought was H20 was H2SO4". Evernut (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposition to move page.

I think we should move this page to Death of Gloria Ramirez or something similar. This article seems to be about her ER visit and death, not her life and who she was as a biography. I feel that would be a more appropriate title for the contents of this article. --Posted by BobThePlatypus at 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic tone

This article needs to loose the "THIS IS THE TRUTH AND THE BASTARDS ARE TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE PEOPLE!!" tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.89.42 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The article is cobbled together from really dated webpages and generally very very poor citations for some critical claims, such as footnote 10 which is the entire "conclusion" paragraph. I think it could be better.173.71.20.192 (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

DMSO.

This is an old footage. Patient most likely suffered from cervical cancer with metastasis to brain. Her brain becomes toxic due to elevated ammonia levels due to carcinoma. Elevated ammonia was causing her confusion. When the young doctor smelled ammonia she w as tricked into thinking that breathing ammonia wil also cause a disease state. Ammonia levels alre now known to be elevated in many cositionsn. Therefore. This is mass hysteria. Sarmandi (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

To conclude “therefore, it [b]must[/b] have been mass hysteria“ is ... bold. Gott (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

bold and ignorant. As well as flat out wrong. Now that there has been peer reviewed study on the matter, it is quite clear that mass hysteria is not at all the case 50.47.235.231 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of original research

I have removed an uncited paragraph debating the chemical explanation conclusions. For starters it was not sourced. It also incorrectly stated that the symptoms of the hospital staff are not common with exposure to dimethyl sulphates. Dr. Grant's peer reviewed paper clearly states that they are. I also removed a following paragraph, it proposes an explanation involving chloramine gas. This is sourced to a New England Journal of Medicine article that has nothing to do with Gloria Ramirez. It's original research.24.127.111.210 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"

I have removed "Conspiracy" from the section entitled "Conspiracy theories". Whatever their plausibility, there is nothing conspiratorial about them. Soulnus (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: I also see this page is listed in the "Conspiracy theories in the United States" category. I believe such an inclusion requires some elaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulnus (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I tagged the section on the "Status of technical forensic analysis" with an NPOV tag because it seems as though significant criticism of the forensic analysis exists (for instance as is mentioned in the Discovery article or in this letter to the editor in response to the journal article), but no mention of this criticism is made, and the section currently reads more like an apologia for the forensic analysis than an overview of its reception.

I hate to tag instead of fixing the article myself, but I don't feel up to the task of properly evaluating the appropriate weight to give to the criticisms. Photos of Japan (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Pointless

The whole discussion is pointless, since there is no indication as to what the patient had actually administered. The most plausible explanation is that she did in fact administer dimethyl sulfate (maybe in error) instead of DMSO.

Any explanation of dimethyl sulfate formation in the body is pointless. The article cited in "Forensic Science International" (P. M. Grant et al, For. Sci. Internat. 1997, Vol. 87, pages 219-237) is dumb, since it postulates chemistry that is not known while ignoring the simple possibility that she may actually have administered a poison by accident.

Those authors think that dimethyl sulfone ("DMSO2") might have formed by oxidation from DMSO, and then DMSO2 should somehow have been further oxidized to dimethyl sulfate. That this is pointless should have been clear in 1997, but certainly oday, since many people do actually self-administer dimethyl sulfone in large amounts. It is called "MSM" ("methyl sulfonyl methane") and is used in amounts of several grams per day (see article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylsulfonylmethane). Evidently, that is a non-toxic chemical which is not converted to dimethyl sulfate, case closed.

How those authors could come up with the most unlikely explanations, when the simple explanation would be that the lady administered a toxic chemical (maybe mixing up a bottle of "dimethyl sulfoxide" with "dimethyl sulfate" - she was a junkie on PCP, after all), I do not know. It is certainly a much more probable explanation. The authors openly admit that "Reasonable answers to this question are only speculative in nature" - in other words, not even the assumption that she self-administered DMSO is proven.

I can even prove that the authors of that article were incompetent. They write on page 225 the following formula:

DMSO2 + 1/2 O2 → DMSO4

Which means that dimethyl sulfone (Me-SO2-Me) should react with one oxygen atom (half an O2 molecule) to give dimethyl sulfate, which contains FOUR oxygens! But the formula is clearly wrong, since DMSO2 and 1/2 O2 sum up to only 3 oxygen atoms.

In other words: this case is best explained by self-administration of a toxic chemical by the patient in combination with incompetent analysis by forensic scientists who do not know much basic chemistry. 138.246.3.168 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The authors are just writing the formula "in chemical shorthand". They aren't balancing it because it's not important to, and they only put the 1/2 in front to indicate that DMSO2 doesn't react with the entire oxygen molecule. If they balanced the equation as "DMSO2 + O2 → DMSO4 " then that would give the impression that a single O2 molecule binds with DMSO to form DMSO4, rather than two rounds of O2 molecules giving one oxygen atom each. Photos of Japan (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Room for alternatives

A caveat: I'm certainly not an expert in the field of chemestry, and I cannot offer any specific counterpoints of the conclusions reached.

With that out of the way: the DMSO theory sounds quite good, but it lacks the certainty of rigor. The ability to recreate and test a theory is essential to the pursuit of science. All we can say for certain is that the theory is plausible enough to have several experts sign off on its plausability. After all: chemistry inside the body is complicated. Something that works in vitro is not guaranteed to have the same effect in vivo. Room for doubt here, I believe, is earned.

There is no mention in this article of the legal proceedings between the city and the family of the deceased. Nor is there mention of the uncooth behavior of city and hospital officials after this event: I beleive that some of the drama involving the OSHA representatives during the initial autopsy would be worth including. This is a story that cannot be cleanly severed from local politics: there is a distinct possibility that information was withheld from the family and the public for the sake of the continued operation of a hospital.

If something were to come to light about that hospital that would force its closure, the effects on the local community could be severe. The ability for healthcare to be administered locally could be severely impacted. Not to mention the personal ambitions of local elected officials...

I do not wish to push unsupported claims here. The DMSO theory is worth considering, but it is also quite *novel*. It seems to me that the circumstances demand an open-minded approach until certainty is achieved, if ever. 47.32.170.113 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)