With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was so concerned that he called his family, and Chris flew up immediately to help bring appellant back to Houston. Both convinced appellant that they would help him in his efforts to save the world with his genetically superior blood if he would return to Houston with them. In Houston, appellant continued his pattern of bizarre behavior. He slept on Patrick’s driveway one night, telling Patrick that he did so because (1) the sun, stars, and moon all emitted particles that drained his gray matter; and (2) he was attracted to them. Chris supported much of Patrick’s testimony. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Glass and appellant’s brothers, we hold that the State clearly and convincingly established the third criterion under section 574.034(a)(2). See Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d at 430 (<HOLDING>). We overrule point of error two. We affirm the

A: holding that an opinion of a potential danger to others is not sufficient to support a commitment under this standard
B: holding that for an initial civil commitment the state has the burden of proof
C: holding testimony of a physician and sister sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly the necessary statutory criterion for temporary commitment
D: recognizing physician assistant as agent of the supervising physician
C.