Jump to content
The World News Media

Prince's 'drug dealer' claims that the superstar could not perform sober


Guest Nicole

Recommended Posts

  • Guest
Guest Nicole

Prince's former drug dealer, "Dr D", claims that Price spent up to £27,772 ($40,000) a time on six-month supplies of Dilaudid pills and fentanyl patches – both highly addictive opioid painkillers. Dr D has claimed that Prince, who was found dead on Thursday, 21 April, at his home in Minneapolis, Minnesota was addicted to drugs for more than 25 years, and would regularly buying drug from him between 1984-2008.

Speaking to the Daily Mail Dr D, claimed that the superstar could not perform on stage without drugs. He went on to say a doctor may have unknowingly contributed to Prince's death by prescribing strong painkillers for his hip condition, without realising Prince was already using opiates.

"I first met Prince in 1984 while he was filming the movie Purple Rain and he was already majorly addicted to opiates," said Dr D. "I didn't hook him on drugs he was already a really heavy user. In the beginning, he would buy speed [amphetamines] as well as Dilaudid [hydromorphone].

"I would sell him black beauties which were a black pill and cross tops which were also speed pills. He would use that as a counter balance to get back up again from taking opiates.

"That lasted for a couple of years. Then he would just buy Dilaudid, which is a heroin-based opiate. It is highly addictive. As far as I knew he never took heroin – as that would leave you out of it for days whereas Dilaudid gives you an energy buzz as well as making you feel relaxed – so he preferred it.

"He needed the drugs because he was so nervous – he could be nervous in a room with just five people in it. He was scared to go out in public, he was scared to talk to people and didn't like to go on stage – he had the worst case of stage fright I'd ever seen.

"A lot of performers rely on drugs to make them feel confident on stage, but he was by far the worse.

"Plus he was always paranoid about doctors so he wouldn't ask them for help – he had a phobia of them. I was surprised when I heard he had been picking up prescriptions before he died."

TMZ had reported that Prince had been spotted going into a pharmacy near his home four times in the week leading up to his death.

Death due to drugs?

After Prince's death, TMZ reported that anonymous sources said that Prince received emergency treatment for a Percocet overdose on 15 April – six days before he died. Percocet is a painkiller marketed in North America that contains paracetamol and the opioid oxycodone.

On Saturday, 23 April, Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist who is not linked to the case has said that Prince's sudden death was from a drug overdose. Speaking on NBC's Today, Wecht said, "I would give overwhelming odds that, tragically, this is a drug death."

He said: "When you rule out foul play, when there is no history of any kind of significant disease, when you rule out any kind of intervention, anything of an environmental nature, you come down to an autopsy that is essentially negative and that probably means drugs."

In 2001, Prince joined the Jehovah's Witnesses. Part of the doctrine of the movement is that the taking of recreational drugs is forbidden. In 2005, it is rumoured that doctors told Prince that he required double hip replacement, but the singer refused the surgery, due to his religious beliefs.

Prince's 1984 anthem Purple Rain looked on course to top next week's official singles chart in the UK, with three of his other hits in the top five. If it reaches the top spot, it will be only the second time Prince has scored a No 1 UK single and would set a new record for the song.

Source: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/princes-drug-dealer-claims-that-superstar-could-not-perform-sober-1556480

prince-dead-age-57.jpg

prince.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2k
  • Replies 2
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.