The King and Dr. Nick: What Really Happened to Elvis and Me [ハードカバー]

I strongly recommend to read Dr. Nichopoulos' account of the story and set aside what you have heard with regards to the "Elvis cover-up" so far. This book is not a plain whitewash as many Elvis admirers may expect.

Dr. Nick reveals very interesting background information about the relationship between the coroner's team led by Dr. Francisco and the pathologists at Baptist Memorial Hospital led by Dr. Muirhead. He thoroughly explains why the autopsy was private and how the toxicology reports were interpreted so differently by the parties. You get a very good idea what went wrong with the autopsy from the start, how Dr. Francisco annoyed the pathologists around Muirhead by not simply stating at the first press conference that they haven't found the cause of death yet but giving the media the information of "cardiac arrhythmia caused by undetermined heartbeat". This plus the following unprofessional behaviour of the pathologists who leaked information of the private autopsy to the press instead of being outspoken in the first place led in 1979 to "investigations" by journalists like Thompson, Cole and Geraldo Riviera who were everything but not educated in toxicology. But one thing they sure were - desperate to unveil a cover-up around Elvis Presley's death.

The outcome of these investigations were three lab reports, none of them convincingly stating that there had been a drug overdose or a polypharmacy case (two of the reports didn't even assume such a thing). If you compare Dr. Nick's account with the drug doses given in the Bioscience report published in the book "The death of Elvis" by Thompson & Cole (1991) you will see that the Bioscience report - who was in the core of the polypharmacy theory - does not come up with even one drug dosage in the lethal range, only two in the minor areas of a toxic and the rest in the therapeutical range. It's not very convincing that these dosages worked together to have caused death. Even more so if you consider that Dr. Davis - a pathologist of the Miami School of Medicine and former chief examiner of Dade County - was asked in 1994 by the state of Tennessee to look once again into all the findings of the autopsy and the Bioscience toxicology report and give his view. Dr. Davis's verdict was unequivocal: drugs did not kill Elvis Presley. Many of the drugs found in his body were psychoinactive metabolites which means that Presley's drug level was considerably lower than originally interpreted in 1977. Elvis Presley may have used too many medications and may have abused some of them during his lifetime but he didn't die of it.

I hope that Dr. Nichopoulos' book gets all the attention it truly deserves. It is an interesting and revealing read, well written as well. Besides, Dr. Nichopoulos sheds some new light on which of the many health problems may have contributed considerably to Elvis' early death. And he gives detailed information on how he administered medication to his famous patient. Buy the book - you won't be disappointed, if you like to get to the bottom of things.

His pager kept beeping and the third beep was the charm. Dr. Nichopoulos, "Dr. Nick" for short, quickly headed to the nearest phone to find out who was calling. It was Tuesday, August 16, 1977, a day that would be cemented in many minds. The panic that can only enter a voice when something is terribly wrong, met him on the other end of the line. "I think he had a heart attack," Joe Esposito called out to him. Dr. Nick was Elvis Presley's doctor and something was wrong, very wrong. An ambulance rushed to transport him to Baptist Memorial. It wasn't long before the world knew what happened at Graceland, but would they ever really know what happened? "Stop CPR. He's gone."

Dr. Francisco made the announcement that the "cause of death [was] cardiac arrhythmia due to undetermined heartbeat," but that wasn't enough. There had to be more, a hidden reason why the King was gone. That quest would ultimately fuel "a controversy that has never died." Vernon was heartbroken and wanted to know who had killed his son. The frenzy had only begun. The media began to circle like vultures. If there were answers, they would find them. Dr. Nick claimed he was cautious when he prescribed drugs, carefully placing them in small brown envelopes ready to be dispensed by Presley's nurse. An innocuous treatment plan and careful monitoring of a patient was commendable, but some people looked askance.

"I was saddened and hurt that Elvis's use of prescription drugs had been kept from me." Dr. Nick exclaimed. Dr. Eric Muirhead doubted that heart disease was the culprit. Someone had to be blamed for this death. The death certificate was signed by Dr. Nick and he thought that would be the end of the questions, but they had only begun for the man who soon became know as a "pill pusher" and the man who killed Elvis Presley. Was there a cover-up? ABCs 20/20 wanted to know about "over five thousand Schedule II narcotics and/or amphetamines" he had prescribed to Elvis Presley. Was Dr. George Nichopoulos being tried in the press? Were these people going to crucify an innocent man to get the scoop or was he really guilty as charged?

I was really quite stunned by many of the revelations in this book. Dr. Nick claimed that he "was confident the truth was on [his] side" and he presents a lot of information for and against him in this book, including a detailed toxicology report. There is an extensive list of source data in the back of the book that includes legal documents, court records, articles, interviews, etc. I am not up on anything "Elvis" and I'm sure many of these revelations are not new to people who have followed this case for the past thirty-two years. Without extensive reading I would not be able to fall on one side or the other, but I did keep in mind that Dr. Nick has had many years to formulate his responses to accusations put before him. He did say that "There were ten charges for which I was ultimately found guilty, which all dealt with overprescribing." Guilty or not? This is a well-written and carefully researched book, but the ultimate verdict will have to rest with the individual reader.

This book courtesy of Thomas Nelson in exchange for an honest review.

The King and Dr. Nick is divided into two fascinating parts. First, we get a glimpse of the strange life of a super star; then, we witness what the media can do to derail a private citizen's life.

Elvis Presley was a larger than life individual. This book leads us into Elvis's world and shows us the problems, both health and psychological, he dealt with on a daily basis. It doesn't take much imagination to realize the incredible strain of performing before thousands of people nightly, coupled with the necessary travel,would place on someone. It, also, doesn't take much imagination to see that a person under so much stress would turn to drugs to try to relieve some of the pressure. It's also true that someone with the ego necessary to perform the way Elvis did, and the money generated by those performances, would be a very difficult patient to control. Dr. Nick makes a good cases that he did the best he could.

The second half of the book presents the truly shocking witch hunt engaged in by ABC that finally led to a medical board review and even a criminal trial. It's almost unbelievable that the media could create such a stir and derail the life of a private citizen. If the medical board, or the attorney general, felt there was a criminal case against Dr. Nick, in my view, they should have pursued it immediately after Elvis's death, not several years later after being hounded by the media. This section is well worth reading as a cautionary tale for all of us.

Read the book then judge for yourself whether Dr. Nick was a victim or a criminal. Personally, I think he did the best he could, and that is all any of us can do.