+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile (/thread-3232.html)
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 07-04-2010
JUDYTH COMMENTS ABOUT JACK WHITE AND THE "MISSING TOOTH"
NOTE: I am adding this to a Kathy post because it explains why it is hard to
take the "missing tooth" scenario seriously, especially when "Harvey's" aunt
is alleged to have paid for the dental bill for "Marguerite" to have it treated.
JUDYTH REPLIES:
Jack White wrote:
"JOHN DOCUMENTS THAT LEE LOST THE TOOTH IN A FIGHT AT
BEAUREGARD JUNIOR HIGH. HE DID NOT "RESTORE" THE TOOTH USING MILK."
==Citation, please, showing us that the teenaged Oswald did not try to save
the knocked-out tooth, when we have a record that "Lee" went to the dentist?
Where is the evidence that the tooth was not saved by using milk?==
"HE DID NOT "RESTORE" THE TOOTH USING MILK"
How do you know that? No photos show a lost tooth, except for a single photo.
ANSWER: In every photo of Oswald, his front tooth is intact--unless you insist
every photo is of "Harvey." There is no reason to believe that Lee and Harvey
were different individuals at Beauregard, when we understand that only the
tesimony of one person makes this distinction--the tesimony of Myra D, who
DROVE "Harvey" to "Lee's" residence on Exchange Alley. She is the ONLY person
to report that "Harvey" asked her to call him "Harvey." She is ther only person to
report that a piano fell on top of "Harvey." She is the only person to report that
she had "Harvey" in her homeroom class, the only home room class she ever had.
She is the only person to report that she--a girl's gym teacher--'somehow' made
friends with "Harvey" a a time Ed Voeble said neither he nor "Lee" (Voeble never
calls Lee "Harvey" and never, ever mentions a "Harvey" in his deposiions)--she's
the only person who says Harvey was a shrimp at Beauregard Junior High School.
[quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='189074' date='Apr 7 2010, 04:55 AM']
[quote name='David Andrews' post='189042' date='Apr 7 2010, 12:29 AM']
[attachment=19823:post_667...69655710.jpg][/quote]
The photo shows "Lee" Oswald in color. Blow it up and see the brown tooth and the color of his eyes.
Kathy C
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 07-04-2010
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON BARB'S PICAYUNE ATTACKS AND EARLIER BOOKS
As I told Dr. Fetzer when he first interviewed me, ten years' worth of nitpicking
would be arrayed against me if we entered a forum instead of staying with blogs.
I particularly warned him that quotes could be taken from the two unauthorized
books out there. One book was written via emals with Dr. Howard Platzman, and
many items were missing and a few were misinterpreted. After it was stolen and
altered by thieves who blackmailed me, trying to get my screenplay, it had to be
abandoned and he book had to be rewritten.
The second book was published behind my back by Harrison E. Livingstone with
good intentions -- I had received death threats -- but he published i with errors
I was not allowed to correct. I told Dr. Fetzer quotations from my unauthorized
book(s) were being used against me, though I had had no control of the final
product and had protested the errors, omissions and even interpolations, some
speculations never meant to reach print, and even the excision of some crucial
explanatory statements. Here is my statement, published in July 2006, after I
learned this book had been published in May, 2006, behind my back. I had been
sent copies and had read the finished product and was overwhelmed by all the
problems with the book.
I sent out a press release to a number of publishers and the media--all of which
were ignored -- and as soon as I calculated that one poor investor hopefully got
'paid' -- I never received any money for it myself and would have refused a single
dollar. I even sent Mr. Livingstone his tiny 'advance' money back -- which originally
had been described as a gift so I could keep my Internet connection going in Hungary.
Here is the disclaimer I wrote as soon as I assessed the condition and inaccuracy of
the book that Barb J. uses as the basis for her criticisms, even though she is aware
that the book was shut down by me for its flaws and faults. Nonetheless, the book
does contain a great deal of useful information (if you can read it, since the typeface
for the endnotes is microscopic). I also published the following declaration and sent
it everywhere I could in the form of a press release. I believe it bears repeating here:
PRESS RELEASE
<뾼˼>JULY 21, 2006
New Book about Kennedy Assassination printed without author’s permission.
Author was the lover of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
Title of the unauthorized publication:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD
The True Story of the Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy by His Lover
Judyth Vary Baker
(A Harrison Edward Livingstone Book) published summer, 2006 by Trafford Press, Canada
STATEMENT FOR THE PRESS:
While I appreciate the kind Forwards written by esteemed JFK assassination researchers
Dr. Harrison Edward Livingstone, and Martin Shackelford, who were responsible for the
publication of this edition, and while I recognize that they believe this book needs to get
into the hands of the American people for the sake of history, nevertheless, this book was
published without my permission and is an unauthorized version of:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: the Truth about the Accused Assassin by Judyth Vary.
I am not responsible for any errors, omissions, libelous statements, etc. in this unauthorized
publication, since it was published without my permission, and I had no access to the final
version before it was printed.
(signed)
Judyth Vary Baker
USA
Additional Comments for Serious Researchers and Readers:
OMISSIONS IN THE BOOK:
Thirty important pages concerning Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas and in Mexico City
were not released to Dr. Livingstone and Mr. Shackelford because, among other
reasons, I was refused access to the ‘final’ edit.
SIZE OF MANUSCRIPT:
Dr. Livingstone wrote that he received ‘a mountain’ of textual material from me,
and that he then had to cut the manuscript to half its size. This is inaccurate.
I can prove it: I copyrighted the first, second, and final drafts, which proves
all the writing is mine, and that the book as delivered to Dr. Livingstone was
only 800 pages long, not twice that size as claimed. Dr. Livingstone may have
included all the email remarks, etc. over a period of 15 months, as part of his
‘mountain’ of textual material.
READABILITY OF BOOK:
By reducing the size of many illustrations (sometimes to a size that was unreadable)
and reducing the size and number of end-notes (the typeface size is almost unreadable)
the book is difficult to read.
VALUE OF BOOK:
Most of the book stands, despite its typos and the rawness of the manuscript in some places,
as the most comprehensive account of Lee Harvey Oswald’s activities and personality in existence,
with new details and evidence sufficient to convince the unprejudiced reader of Oswald’s patriotism,
heroism, and innocence.
MODE OF COMMUNICATING BOOK’S CONTENTS TO LIVINGSTONE :
The book was transferred to an associate of Dr. Livingstone via the Internet, and since Dr. Livingstone
and I did not get along, eventually I was informed that I would not be allowed to see the final edit of
the book. This made me angry. Had I seen this error-filled manuscript, which was reprinted almost
exactly as transmitted over the Internet while I lived in Europe—except that some evidence illustrations
have actually been removed or reduced to a size impossible to easily read—I repeat: had I seen the final
‘edit’ I would have corrected the many typos, etc. After all, I have been teaching English many years, and
though I can’t type very accurately, I am able to proofread final manuscripts quite well.
EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS IN THE BOOK:
To illustrate the superabundance of typos, excisions, and editing problems encountered in this big book,
I have selected a short section -- a mere ten pages -- to illustrate why I am dissatisfied and concerned
about what has reached readers and researchers in this unauthorized version:
p. 205, near bottom: Some sentences were removed, meaning that when the reader reads, “ I caught my
breath. I saw that they were dead serious…” regarding our ongoing conversation at the time, it makes little
sense, since the paragraph before these words is a quote about Clint Murchison, unrelated to the statement.
p. 206: Illustration is on the wrong page (should be on page 207).
p. 208: The paragraph containing “Every three days or so, the fluid had to be replaced…” is repeated on p.
209, with slight variations. I would append part of the end of one Internet file to the next one, to keep the
files in proper chronological order, and in this case, the tag wasn’t removed.
p. 209: Illustration is on the wrong page ---and the caption is incomplete..
p. 212: An important letter (Banister to HUAC guru Edwin Willis, US Rep. LA,) has been removed, making
what is described seem less important than it is, and one has to access end notes contained in the next volume,
which few would bother to do, to see if the letter is present. It is not! It was removed! Willis’ important response
to the letter is also missing. Both letters are in the original manuscript.
p. 213: While quoting a researcher, six lines of comments I wrote at the end of the quote are indented in the
same smaller typeface as the quote, and therefore seem to be part of the researcher’s quote, instead of being
my own words.
p. 214: The important Tasarov Russian defector letter to be discussed with HUAC’s Edwin Willis, whose office
was located directly across the street from where Lee Oswald (former defector) worked at Reily’s, proves that
Willis was privy to all defector information via the CIA. But the letter has been reduced to a size impossible to read.
There are a dismaying and irritating number of typos uncorrected in the text. For example, just below the sentences
mentioned above, there is a semicolon instead of an apostrophe.
RE: End notes and Index: You need a magnifying glass to read the end notes, but end note number 475, for some
reason, is in a HUGE typeface (p. 677).
Misplaced Index and Omissions/Errors in Index:
The Index was placed in the book ahead of the end notes.
Example of Omissions in Index:
The Index has many irritating omissions (for example, “Tommy ‘the Cork’ Corcoran” is missing, who was involved in
Oswald’s Mexico City trip; researcher Mary Ferrell’s name is missing; researcher Debbee Reynold’s name is missing;
Robert Oswald’s name is missing; William I. Monaghan is not indexed as such, but is found under two other headings:
“Bill Monaghan” and “Mr. Monaghan,” etc.)
Example of Errors in Index:
The Index also contains some embarrassing editing errors, such as “ARRB” in the very beginning of the Index, where,
unaccountably, it says “See ARRB, See ARRB, See ARRB.”
Much of the Book Wasn’t Proofread:
Unfortunately, the long list of evidence removed or reduced to an unreadable size, the truncating of many end notes,
and the preservation in the first half of the book of most of the manuscript’s typos, combine to offer frustration to the
serious researcher, and to distract the general reader. I repeat that I was not allowed to view the ‘final edit’ – though
it has been claimed otherwise.
Errors exist such as saying I was conscripted by the CIA, that I was asked to write to President Kennedy in 1960, that
I was in a soundproofed room at Eli Lilly’s instead of a room that resembled a sound-proofed room. Day classes at MJC
in Russian were omitted (why?) from the text. Speculations about AIDS never meant to be printed were included.
Personal remarks about certain researchers, meant only for the editor, were included, creating justifiable anger among
those so mentioned.
The error of Cancun, made by a former agent, instead of Kankun was included, keeping a myth alive that did not belong
in the book, as it was never in my original account.
THIS EDITION IS UNAUTHORIZED and does NOT constitute the whole of my testimony. While I appreciate
the efforts and financial sacrifices made by these noted researchers to get the bulk of the manuscript into the
hands of the American people, I repeat that I am not responsible for any errors therein, nor for any missing or
unreadable materials/evidence. I am also not responsible for any statements or descriptions of living individuals
whose names are mentioned in the manuscript, but were never intended to be shown to the general public, as it
was always my intention to remove or truncate any and all potentially libelous statements from the final version
of the manuscript before its publication.
Honest researchers will be able to discern the value of the book, however flawed the manuscript is: as for me,
I remain dedicated to the goal of the exoneration of the innocent man, Lee Harvey Oswald, and will continue to
do everything in my power to get the truth to the American people, and to the world.
In that spirit, I have decided not to bring any formal charges against Dr. Livingstone and Mr. Shackelford for what
they have done. Instead, I seek a publisher who will assure me that ALL the vital information in my book will be
accessible to as many people as possible, in a fully legible, readable, proofread, intact version.
Judyth Vary
San Luis, Arizona, USA
July 21, 2006
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 07-04-2010
JUDYTH RESPONDS TO BARB ABOUT HER (BARB'S) LATEST BLUNDER
Barb J. tells readers here that :
"MEDEC-ZOA" appears to the left of the "logo" under the letterhead. It is in no way buddied up to Judyth's name."
Barb says it is merely an office address, part of the letterhead on the first page, and she notes that the top of the
letter of the second page is covered. Of course, a second page has no letterhead, nor would it have an "office
address" on the second page.
Barb says she was told that "Medec-Zoa" was just part of an office address, and "It is in no way buddied up to
Judyth's name."
I said it was a file associated with my name, linked later to MEDEC-ZOE.
Further, I have said that the UNAUTHORIZED book leaves important details out: I am not responsible for the way
the letter was shown in the unauthorized book.I have asked people to check with me FIRST before relying on it.
But Barb used the unauthorized book anyway.
Attached is the second page...As everyone knows, no office addresses are on a second page of such correspondence.
![[Image: xmpsv9.jpg]](http://i42.tinypic.com/xmpsv9.jpg)
But there, "buddied up" to my name, is the designation MEDEC ZOA.
In the book, a part of the second page was covered up to make 'more room'--to which I would have objected, but it
was published without allowing me to see the galleys.
I have placed the 2nd page on top of the first page in the second attachment, so you can see it that way, too, this time
around.
![[Image: 20r35hh.jpg]](http://i41.tinypic.com/20r35hh.jpg)
I wonder how many Barb clones are going to chime in "Well done, Barb!" without reading my response? Will I ever get
an apology from Barb for her relentless efforts to discredit me?
The full second page, which shows "Medec Zoa" buddied up to my name, WILL be in the AUTHORIZED book.
JVB
[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='189070' date='Apr 7 2010, 05:34 AM']
JUDYTH: MEDEC-ZOA
In an e-mail to Dave Reitzes in November 2000, Judyth told
him:
Anyway, the letter i have from Walter Reed mentions file name
MEDEC-ZOA. I was ZOA and I was assigned to something called ZOE.
In her book, as a caption under the photo of the letter she received
from Dr. Jacobus at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Judyth
writes:
The letter and notes I received from Walter Reed referred to a file
called 'Medec Zoa'.
As quoted in my post on Judyth's letter to President Kennedy (post#982), Judyth claimed that when she was whisked away to a room by scientists, military officers and others and signed loyalty oaths, she was told to write to both President Kennedy and Walter Reed. She did write to Walter Reed (no copy of that letter available) and Jacobus replied to her on 2 September 1960. Walter Reed Institute of Research, then and now, enthusiastically supported students engaged in science and research. The letter is difficult to read here ... perhaps Judyth will provide copies to Jim so that the entire letter can be seen ... and so that it can be photographed or scanned head on and with greater clarity. Judyth had written WR about her interest and experiments in protecting against injury to the patient during radiation treatment. Dr. Jacobus was sending her some needed chemicals separately, was very encouraging, and encouraged her to let them know how her experiment worked out.
Judyth has claimed that she made regular reports, and that she received several more notes and packages ... but never another letter. No other notes, aside from this letter, has been shown.
The jpg of the letter is what Judyth sent Martin to post as part of her evidence. As you can see, the letter is not complete, the bottom half of the front page is not included. In her book, the bottom half of the page is covered by the end of the Jacobus letter on the next or back page.
![[Image: WalterReedLetter.jpg]](http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WalterReedLetter.jpg)
"MEDEC-ZOA" appears to the left of the "logo" under the letterhead. It
is in no way buddied up to Judyth's name.
I asked a couple of military types, one Air Force, one Army, about
that acronym and both told me the MEDEC would refer to the Command,
and the ZOA would refer to some office within that command. They were
exactly right.
This is not a "file" nor does "ZOA" designate Judyth. It is what the
Army calls an "office symbol" and is essentially an address.
In army lingo, the first 5 letters, in this case, MEDEC, designate the
command. MEDEC was the Medical Research and Development Command, it
was created in 1958 and existed until 1994 when the command name was
changed to MRMC, Medical Research and Materials Command. Today the
office symbol for Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is MCMR [as of
June 2008 when I initially wrote this].
The 3 letters after the hyphen, in this case "ZOA" refers to the the
place and department or office within that command. We know the letter
came from the office of the Chief of the Radiology Department.
The three letters that follow the current command, MCMR, are UWZ. Like
ZOA, those letters do not stand for anything ... they designate an
address within the command. The UW is common to all
offices/departments within WRAIR today. The third letter narrows it
down to which department or office, and if those 3 letters are
followed by a hyphen and then a number, it narrows it down even
further, even to a specific person.
MEDEC-ZOA was essentially the office or department address in Army
speak.
I spoke to Debra at WRAIR, she is the Assistant Director for Research
Marketing and Policy Development. She went to a couple of old timers
as well as to historical data on the previous command designations ...
and their "office symbols" of yore ... and then called me with the
information. My thanks to her.
MEDEC-ZOA is no mystery ... and no file or designation regarding
Judyth for any special or secret project.
Barb :-)[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 08-04-2010
NOTE: As will be apparent, this is directed at harassment on The Ed Forum.
JIM REPLIES TO SOME OF THOSE WHO COMMENT HERE THE MOST
There appears to be an inverse relationship between negative comments
and positive knowledge about Judyth by participants on this forum. Those
who are the most negative know the least about her, which includes some
who pose as though they were most knowing--where virtually every post is
greeted with cheers from those least qualified to judge. Barb has indeed
been doing "a fantastic job" if obfuscation is the goal. The one who, in my
view, knows the most about all of this is Ed Haslam, who has elaborated on
the context indispensable for understanding what was going on in the city
at the time, which had more to do with an extraordinary cancer-research
project than it did with the personal relationship between Judyth and Lee.
I find it unsurprising in the extreme that several of Judyth's most severe
critics have been shown to be in collusion with John McAdams, whom no
reasonable person dedicated to discovering the truth about the death of
JFK would ever consider taking seriously in their wildest dreams. Thus,
the fact that they have joined together in attempts to discredit her is, to
my mind, indispensable to appreciating their role on this thread. And my
occasional misstatements about what they are about are trifles compared
to the gross abuse to which they are subjecting Judyth, who has much
more to tell us regarding some of the murkiest aspects of assassination
research, events which were taking place in New Orleans during 1963.
This thread has exposed major problems in the HARVEY & LEE scenario
as well as explaining quite a lot about the relationship between Judyth
and Lee, who, as Ed Haslam has explained, were collaborating with David
Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman in a project to develop an anti-cancer-virus
cure that became crucial when it was discovered that the polio vaccine
being use to inoculate around 100,000,000 children and young adults
was contaminated with the SV-40 virus, derived from the incubation of
batches for study in the kidneys of Rhesus monkeys. It is a fascinating
and remarkable story, which I am only now beginning to piece together.
I therefore believe that some criticisms of Judyth have arisen because I
myself have been slow to appreciate what was going on and that their
relationship appears to have been arranged in order for Lee to assist
Judyth with the practical aspects of life in relation to the threats and
promises of the New Orleans environment, where many dark secrets
and covert activities linked Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Carlos Marcello,
and Lee Oswald together in anti-Castro activities, while Judyth was in
collaboration with David Ferrie, Mary Sherman, and Alton Ochsner to
fix vaccines, a cure for polio that was more dangerous than the disease.
For those who want to appreciate what Judyth story is actually all about,
let me recommend Ed Haslam's book, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, in which he
offers a fascinating exploration of the circumstances that brought Judyth,
Lee, Ferrie, Sherman, and Ochsner together in one of the most remarkable
covert operations in American medical history. Even simpler, tune in to
revereradio.net this Friday from 5-7 PM/CT and listen to Jesse Ventura for
the first hour and Ed Haslam the second. You may be as stunned as I to
learn how much more was involved in the relationship between Lee and
Judyth than has been presented on this very thread, where the personal
has overshadowed the scientific. Research on an unexpected problem in
the "cure for polio" was the crucial element that we have been missing.
[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='189189' date='Apr 8 2010, 07:47 AM']
[quote name='Mike Williams' post='189170' date='Apr 8 2010, 03:41 AM']
[quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='189164' date='Apr 7 2010, 08:21 PM']
MEDEC-ZOA is no mystery ... and no file or designation regarding
Judyth for any special or secret project.
Barb :-)
Another example of Barb's trying to scarf up a bit of information and present her opinion as 'fact'.[/quote]
Which of course is just Pamelas opinion as well.
Barb,
I commend you. How you manage to continue to even deal with such lunacy is beyond me. I have read many of your writings and have always thought well of your work, but never so much as now. Some people never learn that the first thing to do when one finds oneself in a hole, is quit digging. I must say I am enjoying this beating you are dishing out very much!
Mike
[/quote]
Mike
Very well said and I certainly agree with you.
It is nothing less than amazing that Barb somehow repeatedly finds the energy to argue with these people. Over here we have this old saying "don't throw pearls to the pigs" and I don't think I need to elaborate on this.
Barb is doing a fantastic job, real research with actual facts. Again and again, and all she gets back from Judyfetz is demeaning and derogatory BS. No answers, except "bad memory", "nit picking" and the usual, decade old, twisting, turning and bending.
Sum it up and there should be no doubts as to what Judyth is all about.
Best regards Mike,
Glenn
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 08-04-2010
JUDYTH REPLIES WITH A CORRECTION TO JIM'S SUMMARY HISTORY
ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT BEGAN WITH TRYING TO FIND A CURE FOR THE CONTAMINATED
POLIO VACCINE, BY THE TIME I JOINED, A PORTION OF THE PROJECT BY THEN ALREADY
HAD DISCOVERED A DEADLY CANCER. OCHSNER REALIZED THAT EVEN HE HAD BEEN
DUPED BY SCIENCE INTO BELIEVING HIS GRANDCHILDREN WOULD BE SAFE FROM THE
VACCINE. HE THUS LOST HIS SON. THIS CAUSED HIM TO REALIZE, WHEN HE OBSERVED
THAT A DEADLY CANCER HAD BEEN DISCOVERED WHILE WORKING ON FINDING A CURE
FOR THE CONTAMINATED POLIO VIRUS MATTER, THAT HE HAD A BIOWEAPON AT HAND.
AFTER ALL, WHAT DOCTOR WOULD THINK A CANCER DEVELOPING IN SOMEBODY WAS
ANYTHING BUT NATURAL? OCHSNER WAS RABIDLY ANTI-COMMUNIST AND ANTI-CASTRO,
HAD FOUNDED INCA AND NOW HE HAD A WAY TO GET CASTRO, THROUGH HIS OLD MEDICAL
CONTACTS IN CUBA. BY THE TIME I ARRIVED, THE PROJECT CONCERNED ONLY BIOWEAPON
DEVELOPMENT. IT SOON GOT OUT OF OCHSNER'S HANDS. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE
HERE DO NOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE WERE STILL TRYING, AT THIS TIME, TO
SOLVE THE CONTANIMATED POLIO VACCINE PROBLEM. IN FACT, CONTANIMATED VACCINES
CONTINUED TO BE MANUFACTURED AND SENT TO UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE UNTIL THE 1990s.
JVB
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189211' date='Apr 8 2010, 01:42 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO SOME OF THOSE WHO COMMENT HERE THE MOST
There appears to be an inverse relationship between negative comments
and positive knowledge about Judyth by participants on this forum. Those
who are the most negative know the least about her, which includes some
who pose as though they were most knowing--where virtually every post is
greeted with cheers from those least qualified to judge. Barb has indeed
been doing "a fantastic job" if obfuscation is the goal. The one who, in my
view, knows the most about all of this is Ed Haslam, who has elaborated on
the context indispensable for understanding what was going on in the city
at the time, which had more to do with an extraordinary cancer-research
project than it did with the personal relationship between Judyth and Lee.
I find it unsurprising in the extreme that several of Judyth's most severe
critics have been shown to be in collusion with John McAdams, whom no
reasonable person dedicated to discovering the truth about the death of
JFK would ever consider taking seriously in their wildest dreams. Thus,
the fact that they have joined together in attempts to discredit her is, to
my mind, indispensable to appreciating their role on this thread. And my
occasional misstatements about what they are about are trifles compared
to the gross abuse to which they are subjecting Judyth, who has much
more to tell us regarding some of the murkiest aspects of assassination
research, events which were taking place in New Orleans during 1963.
This thread has exposed major problems in the HARVEY & LEE scenario
as well as explaining quite a lot about the relationship between Judyth
and Lee, who, as Ed Haslam has explained, were collaborating with David
Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman in a project to develop an anti-cancer-virus
cure that became crucial when it was discovered that the polio vaccine
being use to inoculate around 100,000,000 children and young adults
was contaminated with the SV-40 virus, derived from the incubation of
batches for study in the kidneys of Rhesus monkeys. It is a fascinating
and remarkable story, which I am only now beginning to piece together.
I therefore believe that some criticisms of Judyth have arisen because I
myself have been slow to appreciate what was going on and that their
relationship appears to have been arranged in order for Lee to assist
Judyth with the practical aspects of life in relation to the threats and
promises of the New Orleans environment, where many dark secrets
and covert activities linked Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Carlos Marcello,
and Lee Oswald together in anti-Castro activities, while Judyth was in
collaboration with David Ferrie, Mary Sherman, and Alton Ochsner to
fix vaccines, a cure for polio that was more dangerous than the disease.
For those who want to appreciate what Judyth story is actually all about,
let me recommend Ed Haslam's book, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, in which he
offers a fascinating exploration of the circumstances that brought Judyth,
Lee, Ferrie, Sherman, and Oechner together in one of the most remarkable
covert operations in American medical history. Even simpler, tune in to
revereradio.net this Friday from 5-7 PM/CT and listen to Jesse Ventura for
the first hour and Ed Haslam the second. You may be as stunned as I to
learn how much more was involved in the relationship between Lee and
Judyth than has been presented on this very thread, where the personal
has overshadowed the scientific. Research on an unexpected problem in
the "cure for polio" was the crucial element that we have been missing.
[quote name='Glenn Viklund' post='189189' date='Apr 8 2010, 07:47 AM']
[quote name='Mike Williams' post='189170' date='Apr 8 2010, 03:41 AM']
[quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='189164' date='Apr 7 2010, 08:21 PM']
MEDEC-ZOA is no mystery ... and no file or designation regarding
Judyth for any special or secret project.
Barb :-)
Another example of Barb's trying to scarf up a bit of information and present her opinion as 'fact'.[/quote]
Which of course is just Pamelas opinion as well.
Barb,
I commend you. How you manage to continue to even deal with such lunacy is beyond me. I have read many of your writings and have always thought well of your work, but never so much as now. Some people never learn that the first thing to do when one finds oneself in a hole, is quit digging. I must say I am enjoying this beating you are dishing out very much!
Mike
[/quote]
Mike
Very well said and I certainly agree with you.
It is nothing less than amazing that Barb somehow repeatedly finds the energy to argue with these people. Over here we have this old saying "don't throw pearls to the pigs" and I don't think I need to elaborate on this.
Barb is doing a fantastic job, real research with actual facts. Again and again, and all she gets back from Judyfetz is demeaning and derogatory BS. No answers, except "bad memory", "nit picking" and the usual, decade old, twisting, turning and bending.
Sum it up and there should be no doubts as to what Judyth is all about.
Best regards Mike,
Glenn
[/quote]
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 08-04-2010
OSWALD VERSUS NORTON : HANDWRITING COMPARISON
Judyth Vary Baker
ANALYSIS:
![[Image: fw172a.jpg]](http://i43.tinypic.com/fw172a.jpg)
1) Lee writes "O"s beginning with an inside stroke, not an outside stroke.
2) When signatures are at the same size, as in the samples (but not below he samples),
Norton’s non-cap letters are significantly shorter than Oswald’s. Oswald almost never
ended any of his words with flattened out letters, as in the Norton signature on "Norton".
Nor is the "N" similar o any of the "N"s that Oswald wrote: Oswald’s "N" is smaller than
the capital "O"—the very opposite of the Norton signature’s "N" and "O" relationship.
![[Image: 29goiv4.jpg]](http://i41.tinypic.com/29goiv4.jpg)
A second example of a capital "N":
![[Image: 2vdseid.jpg]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2vdseid.jpg)
Oswald’s printed "N"s are also radically different from Norton’s.
3) The "O" in Norton’s signature is much rounder than in the Oswald signature.
4) The slant is the same in both Oswald’s and Norton’s: this is the greatest resemblance,
but of itself, is not enough to make a determination.
5) Norton makes his "D" slant backward for "Donald" but Oswald never wrote any
capital "D"s backward. Further, none of Lee H. Oswald’s "D"s resemble the "D" in basis:
![[Image: 2h5qnme.jpg]](http://i41.tinypic.com/2h5qnme.jpg)
6) Lee Oswald ends to write his small ‘n’s differently from Norton and the arch of the n
often slants backward, whole others have a sharpness, as in Norton’s example, but the
stem on the right of Oswald’s "n"s almost never make a sharp "v" shape as in Norton’s
signature: they are rounded, as the top of a heart would be.
![[Image: mb0qdt.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/mb0qdt.jpg)
7) And finally, the amount of absolute SPACE between words in the signatures are
different: Oswald puts more space between first name, initial and last name in both
instances shown compared to Norton’s more squashed-up signature.
Conclusion: Donald Norton’s handwriting indicates that he did not write anything attributed
to Lee H. Oswald and is not a candidate for “Lee” in regard to the handwriting samples
shown above, as offered by Jack White in his proposition that Norton’s handwriting
resembles Oswald’s. In short, Norton’s handwriting, insofar as his signature is concerned,
does not resemble Oswald’s except in the most superficial and superfluous respects.
JVB
[quote name='Jack White' post='189183' date='Apr 8 2010, 05:32 AM']
[quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='189182' date='Apr 8 2010, 03:26 AM']
[quote name='Jack White' post='189065' date='Apr 7 2010, 04:36 AM']
I am starting this new thread which I hope will be limited to a single
subject....which Jim/Judyth have suggested:
"THE ERRORS OF JOHN ARMSTRONG."
Both have the book Harvey & Lee. I ask that if they wish to address
these "errors" that they do so in this thread, and with the following
limitations:
John has "retired" from JFK research and DOES NOT WANT ANY
PART OF INTERNET DEBATES. He has said everything that he
intends to say IN HIS BOOK. He stands behind everything in
his book, as do I. I will attempt to answer any legitimate
questions about alleged "errors". But one at a time, please.[/quote]
This doesn't fit your criteria -- or maybe it does. John Armstrong is the cause of my long-held
frustration regarding Donald O. Norton, who is supposed to be Lee Oswald. It isn't fair. If there
is something to it, Jack, please tell me. You know Armstrong.
Kathy C
[/quote]
Based on John's six-month investigation of Norton, I believe Norton is the original LEE Oswald.
Here is a comparison of LEE and NORTON signatures. I believe the characters show great similarity.
Jack
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 08-04-2010
JUDYTH RESPONDS TO LOLA ABOUT CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ALTON OCHSNER AND THE CIA
NOTE: Judyth discusses the "dark side" of Alton Ochsner and the CIA, where the development of a
biowheapon became the objective of the research group including Judyth, David Farrie, Mary Sherman
and Alton Oschner, where Lee provided assistance in making connections and in looking after Judyth.
The increasing prevalence of drivel from the latest Junkkarinen "cheerleading squad" appears to be a
response to increased attention to cancer research and especially the development of a bioweapon.
JUDYTH REPLIES:
Oh, Lola, there's abundant evidence about Ochsner. Chennault, Donovan, Anna Chennault, Jane
Ochsner (second wife), Nixon, Ochsner's connections even to Marcello, his connections to Hoover,
Murchison, all the players in the assassination--and he was the doctor who moved freely among
them all and went untouched with suspicion..So after Lee and Sherman and Ferrie had been taken
out, only Jim Garrison and I remained among those who knew about these secret research projects.
![[Image: 35byywj.jpg]](http://i48.tinypic.com/35byywj.jpg)
![[Image: cjjpg.jpg]](http://i49.tinypic.com/cjjpg.jpg)
And much, much more. Ochsner is up to his ears in relation to the CIA.
![[Image: 29pz2c4.jpg]](http://i46.tinypic.com/29pz2c4.jpg)
People such as Barb hammer away at things such as the address on the Walter Reed
letter and thereby nobody reads the letter...And she has all these people chiming in who
automatically okay everything she says or does, even though she has contaminated her
witnesses, places over-emphasis on trivialities, and cannot even understand how analysis
of mouse urine was necessary to avoid dissecting mouse bladders -- to say nothing of the
fact that obtaining live cancer cells from mouse urine meant that I could culture them and
start new lines of cancers...Some of those lines of cancer cells thus became "immortal."
![[Image: fo3fhc.jpg]](http://i40.tinypic.com/fo3fhc.jpg)
![[Image: 20h51si.jpg]](http://i45.tinypic.com/20h51si.jpg)
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 09-04-2010
JIM REPLIES TO BARBARA'S BLIZZARD OF RUBBISH POSTS ABOUT NOTHING
Complete and total rubbish. Why should Barb be making a federal offense over information that her own son had posted on Facebook? In case she hasn't noticed, Facebook is a public source. There is nothing unusual about her son posting information about his career, as many of other millions of people have done, where what they do for a living is available in their Facebook page. It is not private. In fact, it is very rare for somebody to post absolutely nothing on themselves, like Barb. What is the problem with her son saying on his Facebook page that he has an association with Air Force ROTC? Nothing at all! I participated in the Navy ROTC myself as an undergraduate at Princeton, where, junior year, I took the Marine Corps option. I bear him no malice. What is weird and revealing is trying to make such a brouhaha out of a simple mistake on my part in taking something sent to me from her son's site to have been sent to me from her site. Everyone reading this thread can compare the content of the posts from Judyth with the lack of content in the posts from Junkkarinen and her cheering squad. These cheap shots are childish beyond measure.
[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='189268' date='Apr 8 2010, 10:07 PM']
[quote name='John Dolva' post='189265' date='Apr 8 2010, 10:58 PM']
You're welcome Barb. I mean by blitz to back you up. Not sit on the sideline. But you're obviously not a victim type and the support is obviously there. OK, well he can consider stopping digging at some point, I suppose.[/quote]
Ahhhh! Okay, that kind of blitz .... indeed.
Cheers,
Barb :-)
[/quote]
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 09-04-2010
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JUNKKARINEN'S "FACT CHECKING" ABILITIES
NOTE: In post #1011, Barb (rather sanctimoniously asserts), "I would never apologize to anyone for fact checking their claims. The very idea is ludicrous. Research requires fact checking claims. Even you have made comments about how you wouldn't expect anyone to believe such claims as these without proof ... and assuring people you have the proof." But for that role, a person has to be able to do competent "fact checking". Below is her attempt to "fact check" Judyth's statements about collecting murine urine, based upon her "own" lab experience but revealing her lack of experience with cancer research. Judyth only calls "Three Strikes!", but there appear to be many blunders here. This is pseduo-scientific fakery. With this degree of incompetence, just what exactly does her gang have to cheer about?
JUDYTH REPORTS ON BARB'S "CRITIQUE" OF JVB'S CANCER RESEARCH
Background: Barb J wanted readers to believe that murine urine (mouse urine) could not be used to determine if a metastasis to the bladder in my mice with lymphoma occurred in my cancer research, even though she knew nothing about the project and asserted that she knew all about urine samples (in humans), since she herself had collected urine samples in a clinic. Her activities as described were so far from what I was doing with cancerous mice that I was astounded.
Her objective was to try to prove that I would not have collected mouse urine. She wants readers to believe that an incident involving odor and wetness on my clothing came from my urinating on myself rather than having spilled mouse urine on my teacher's coat, which had to be washed off. A student reported that I pee'd on myself because I was afraid to stand before an English class. Actually, I was embarrassed because my clothing was wet and I stank like mouse urine. In my lab, hurrying to leave to go to English class, I had knocked over a vial of mouse urine onto my dress and a teacher's raincoat, and washing it off basically just spread the odor all over me.
Then I had to attend my English class and was embarrassed about my wet, smelly clothing. A student reported the incident to a hostile newspaper reporter. The student also said my mice at one point had been released, and since they were all white, how could I tell which were which after they were caught again? However, I then produced a newspaper article describing how the mice had been color-coded purple, yellow, etc. with Easter egg food coloring to keep them distinguishable in case any got loose.The student was simply ignorant of that fact because only the white ones had got loose.
As for my being so scared to stand in front of my English class that I pee'd on myself, I had already participated om many public events. I had been one of just four persons in the Sophomore Class Play; I had been top winner in my class magazine drive (door to door magazine sales); I had made civics' speeches, and much more.
Barb J made fun of the idea that I worked with mouse urine collections. She stated I would not be able to collect enough mouse urine to spill on myself and that, in cancer research, I would not have collected any. She misspells terms and actually mentions one of the famous doctors who inspired me along the way, misspelling his name, too!
While I do not doubt she had worked in some kind of general lab setting, she does not understand my research.
Her feeble knowledge of genuine cancer research is clearly revealed in the following exchange, even as she attempts to mock my work, where the euphemism she likes to use to describe ridicule is "fact-checking". By now, no doubt, she has an oncologist at her side, to assist her from embarrassing herself like this today. But it would be difficult to imagine a more telling illustration of her scientific ignorance, which, of course, is augmented by her expressions of prejudice mixed with ad hominem arguments.
==My COMMENTS are like this==
<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[Shackelford wrote]
>Judyth comments on Barb's blithering ignorance regarding her mouse
>research:
BJ: Hilarious. Entertaining, but a very simplistic and naive view of urine
for cytology and what is involved in the handling, processing and
preparation of specimens so slides can be read for cancerous cells.
==Barb assumes that fresh murine urine specimens weren’t analyzed in 1960-61==
BJ: And Mother of God preserve us ... or at least put some preservative in
those beakers of how many days old pooled mouse urine...good for what
tests depending on individual test requirements and specifications one
has to wonder. Ewwwwwy!
==Refrigeration is STILL the preferred method, but Barb assumes the murine
urine was kept a long time. Strike one, Barb, who does not offer citations but
specializes in personal attacks==
BJ: I started out taking what Judyth wrote line by line, but it just got
too ridiculous. When I came to,
"...mouse urine from the dead mouse is sucked out
with a hypodermic needle, and a few drops are checked under the
microscope for metastases. "
I just had to stop. Reminds me of her one handed whirl girl claims of
the lab work she claims she did at the Jackson Mental Hospital doing
red cell counts on packed red cells (LOL!)
==Barb’s; cyber-laughter and ad hominem name-calling takes the place, for her, of actual references. The RBC count was NOT performed on packed RBC’s. Basic blood profile stats were already available. I read them all, then double-checked slides to make sure the stats were competent. It was my judgment on whether or not to proceed from there: further analysis involved great expense, and I had to make sure it would be worth it. Barb deliberately misleads her readers. Inaccurately conflating my procedures, Barb writes next:==
BJ: and looking for "special" white cells in drops of blood
==Barb acts as if table centrifuges didn’t exist. The work was advanced. Finally, two years after I wrote of what I developed, in 1999, comes evidence that WBC counts are indeed important to determine cancer — finally confirmed over 35 years after I discovered essentially the same thing, impressing Ochsner:
"Inflammatory processes are implicated in the development and progression of cancer," write Anoop Shankar, MD, PhD, from the National University of Singapore, and colleagues. …”We examined the prospective relationship between circulating WBC count and cancer mortality…. The primary endpoint was all cancer mortality determined from vital status as of December 31, 2001…”
“Higher WBC count was associated positively with all cancer mortality. After adjustment for age, sex, education, body mass index, hematocrit level, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, smoking, weekly aspirin use, diabetes mellitus or fasting hyperglycemia status, and fasting glucose levels, the multivariable relative risk (RR) for all cancer mortality for the highest quartile of WBC count (>/=7,400 cells/μL) vs the lowest quartile (</=5,300 cells/μL) was 1.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 - 2.55)…”==
BJ: ….under a microscope ... whatever nonsensical gibberish she wrote.
==Barb J. uses prejudice-loaded words such as ‘nonsensical gibberish” while misrepresenting what occurred, assuming readers will decide that her mockery means she knows more. Barb, in her ignorance, says:==
BJ: A few drops of fresh, just "sucked out" by syringe, urine on a slide
under a microscope to detect cancer cells? Please.
==Note this from Mayo Clinic, (and near the bottom of this long post, an even better example):
“For a urine cytology test, you provide a urine sample. …A lab technician will process the urine to retrieve any normal and, if present, abnormal cells and prepare them for analysis under a microscope. A trained pathologist will then examine the specimen to look for cancer cells…”
Note: these cells do not have to be stained if you know what you’re looking at.
ALSO: Taneka, Zhou, et al, wrote: “…voided urine was collected on slides weekly for 3 weeks and observed … cells in spontaneously voided urine varied by cell line and increased with time... All mice with …(fluorescently identified cancer) cells in the urine had …bladder tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Examining urine for (fluorescing cancerous) cells is less sensitive than imaging surgically exposed bladders but it is 100% specific.”
Note the use of slides and ‘voided urine’ ---mouse examples..You don’t have to subject these cancerous cells to fluorescent additives to spot them. Strike two, Barb! BJ next writes:==
BJ: Cancer cells detected through urine for cytology can be from
other places in the urinary tract, btw ... not just the bladder.
==Barb is THE cancer expert? Citation, please. And if the cells were shed from the urinary tract instead of the bladder? I wasn’t going to work to remove a bladder and inspect its teeny-tiny opened-up interior under a microscope, if I saw no cancer cells in the aspiraed urine. Not with 175 mice at a time to dissect. I was doing so much dissection that my mother begged me never to dissect any pet, as I had a turtle that died when I was at St. Francis, and she was afraid I’d dissected even it. I still have the letter.==
BJ (carrying on): Brain, bone, liver ... and, I think, the adrenal glands,
are the most common sites of lung cancer metasteses, though it can spread to
virtually any organ. Was she routinely checking those more common sites too?
==Among other failings in her medical ‘knowledge,’ Barb cannot spell “metastases,” Does she actually believe I would not inspect all major organs and systems? That’s precisely why I checked bladder contents. Part of the over-all procedure.==
BJ: …In all her detailed explanations of her mouse cancer doings
over all these years, I don't recall ever hearing about checking mouse
urine for metasteses to the bladder ... or checking of any sort for
the same to other organs.
==Barb never asked. All good researchers doing full examinations of mice for cancer also check the bladder, where metastatic activity might be found. BJ, cancer expert, can’t even spell “METASTASES” a second time correctly. In the case of the tumors of the mice killed at Dave Ferrie’s, I’m on record describing and picturing intraperitoneal tumors of great size that were excised, opened, categoried, and weighed, along with the lung cancer tumors. Photos of these huge tumors were displayed even in the versions of my stolen books.
Here’s a reference: Gerber, Bigelo, Lord, et al, wrote: “Controlling metastases remains a critical problem in cancer biology. Within the peritoneal cavity …We found that the vasculature within these aggregates contained CD105+ vessels and vascular sprouts, both indicators of active angiogenesis. ...metastatic tumor cells preferentially grow at sites rich in proangiogenic vessels, apparently stimulated by angiogenic factors produced by mesothelial cells.”==
BJ writes: This stuff is familiar to me
==No, it is obviously not.==
BJ:….because in my years in the lab, it sometimes
==Just "sometimes"?==
BJ …happened on my watch that a patient needed to collect a
urine for cytology and sometimes I was the one handy to instruct the
patient, or the doctor, and/or handle the specimen when it came in.
==BJ thinks this statement will make the reader believe she is an expert in handling cancerous mouse urine and identifying murine bladder cancers, including criticizing my methodology. BJ had the unrelated experience of collecting little cups full of people's urine and preparing the urine samples for tests.==
BJ: Years later, I wrote the hospital's lab services manual that includes
the specimen collection and handling requirements for every test ...
including cytology specimens.
==Citation? If she wrote such instructions, they involved how to get a clean urine sample when wee-weeing into a cup, and that it needed then to be prepared for a doctor or cytologist to examine. She does not seem to have done much, herself, with the wee-wee==
BJ: I've also handled processing and preparing cytology specs for examination
by the pathologist ... in the olden days.
=="Processing and preparing" cytology specimens? Don't you mean, preparing and processing cytology specimens? What kind? From urine samples? "In the olden days"? Was BJ demoted to just collecting urine samples, later, for some reason?
As for me, I was trained by cancer specialists and pathologists, two of whom had been recently trained at Oak Ridge, and by others running the new oncology labs at Manatee Memorial Hospital and at Sarasota. I have mentioned going to Manatee Memorial Hospital’s basement, where the new lab was located, and creating many tissues slides there. Gee, where did all those slides of mouse cancer tissues and blood materials come from, that Nobel Prize winner Urey inspected in my lab, along with Drs. Ochsner and Moore? Pathologists and doctors overlooked my work until I was deemed able to handle all murine specs alone. Was Barb trained by pathologists? What's her background?==
BJ: For years now there is a fully staffed dept of cytotechnologists and
histologists who do all that for themselves
==I did my own histology studies, BJ. And they were vetted.==
BJ: ...and for the pathologists who review all abnormal cytology finds, and,
of course, attend to grossing all tissues as well as reading the slides/block preparations.
==So what? Did BJ do it before they came along? Is that what she means? I think not I mention using a microtome in the books. It's used to slice blocks of cells set in paraffin to make slides. How happy I was to get my first micrtome. What would I be wanting THAT for?==
BJ: Tell her to google more, Martin...she should be able to come up with
the specimen handling and processing requirements for performance of
urine for cytology. Cell degradation, fixation, the button, staining
==BJ assumes everything has to be stained or set in balsam? BJ needs to google and look at all the ‘fresh urine’ and ‘murine cancer’ entries. Of course, there are other search terms she’d need to find everything, such as ‘distilled water’ and ‘brushing’ to find out what I was doing.==
BJ... she doesn't seem to have a clue what all is involved. It is not the quick look
at a few drops of fresh urine under the microscope she seems to be making it out to be ...
==BJ says 'seems' because she has no idea what I was doing with the murine urine. I didn't inspect "a few drops of fresh urine under the microscope"--she is just guessing, because she does not know the procedure I used. She is 100% in error here. It was the sediment, what first drifts down into the hypo,in those ten drops of urine, that was aspirated from every mouse bladder, then inspected.==
BJ: to decide whether or not to open the bladder on a dead mouse, no less (sigh).
==Nonsense. You use the sediment. It settles at the bottom of the hypo cylinder in just a few minutes. Lots of junk there, a lot of various cells, and my interest wasin any abnormal cells present. If such were present, then the bladder was opened for inspection. I wasn't going to open every bladder when I could look a the sediment under a microscope, which was much faster. Spencer’s “Urinalysis” manual for technicians describes why fresh urine is used, and why we do not need to stain anything:
“ The specimen used for microscopic examination should be as fresh as possible. Red cells and many formed solids tend to disintegrate upon standing, particularly if the specimen is warm or alkaline….(the urine sediment is accessed)… Place a coverslip over the drop and place under the microscope. Although commercial stains are available to highlight cellular elements, examination of unstained urine is usually adequate…Urine sediment is assessed under a high power field (HPF) for the presence of red and white blood cells. Normally, there should be only an occasional red blood cell in the urine (2-3 per high power field). Hematuria , the presence of abnormal numbers of red blood cells in the urine may be due to: Glomerular disease …Tumors…”
Metastases into the bladder from a lung cancer proved to be so rare I didn’t bother to open the bladder unless intrigued by what I saw in a drop of sediment. I also wanted the rest of urine saved, to analyze for gross chemical differences between mice with lung cancer and the controls.. After all, this was only 1960-61.==
BJ: "Blithering ignorance" is a pretty darn good description overall here,
==BJ descends to name calling instead of using citations. She attacks me as if she were an oncology ‘expert’ who, however, doesn’t understand the concept of using fresh urine when examining murine urine for unusual cells in the sediment portion of the samples, and that the urine then was gong to be analyzed to see if it differed from the urine of normal (control) animals as to gross composition, attained by studying urine samples using column chromatography.I attach a photo where you can see tall glass columns for chromatography in the background, for processing mouse urine samples.==
BJ: imo ...
==More ‘opinion’ from Barb!==
BJ: on her part for what she expects people to swallow...and perhaps
of you for once again swallowing anything she says whole. Cripes, Martin,
does it ever occur to you to check ANYthing she spews forth?
=="spews forth" of course means to vomit. Barb poisons the reader. WHO CHECKS BARB?.==
BJ: Either one of you ever heard of Papanicalaou? I'm sure she has
... all us girls have.
== Nope. NONE of "us girls" ever heard of “Papanicalaou” -- for “ Papanicalaou” doesn’t exist! Once again, Barb is mis-spelling a very important word. She means “Papanicolaou.” He was a hero in Florida, and of course I leaned on his work. He actually produced a fine paper about using sediment smears to detect urinary tract cancer, which gave me the very idea to check the sediment in my mouse urine, using a slide—better known as a “urine sediment smear”, to wit:
Papanicolaou, George N; Marshall, Victor F. URINE SEDIMENT SMEARS AS A DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE IN CANCERS OF THE URINARY TRACT. Science. 1945 May 18;101(2629):519–520. [PubMed] STRIKE THREE, BARB!
== “Barb the researcher” will no doubt paste together another ‘masterpiece’ with which to assail me. Her ‘research’ is mostly a mixture of name-calling and half-baked lab memories.==
BJ: And she never did address the comment ... just how many mice DOES it
take to collect a beaker of urine ... and she claims there were TWO beakers. One
has to wonder just how many dead mice she was handling on a daily basis.
==I address it now, THOUGH WAS NEVER ASKED -- though am on my way to my lovely little apartment in Turkey.
NOTE: There were several major mouse kills, as well as regular individual kills. From 75 adult mice, 12-15 ml of urine was possible. Another 75 controls were killed at the same time. Urine collections were thereby separated into two types. The urine sediment was washed from the slide with a hypodermic needle containing a pre-measured amount of distilled water into a very small beaker. The urine that remained in the first syringe was also emptied into the same small beaker, creating. 24-30 ml. of diluted urine in each beaker. This urine was subjected to column chromatography, within 2-3 days. The smell was obscene, the beaker very small, the needle very long, and -- just once -- I spilled it (control beaker)==
BJ: Her other explanations and ramblings are about as convincing as her
musings on detecting cancer cells in a few drops of, as she explains it, fresh urine.
==BJ. uses verbiage such as ‘ramblings’ and ‘musings’ to continue to sway the reader while simultaneously continuing to fail to cite anything to back up her own statements.Nor does she understand what I was doing, as explained above.==
BJ: This was a far from impressive punt.
==Barb needs to go back to college. ‘Sometimes’ overseeing urine sample collection from human clients and writing a handbook on how to do the simplistic and common procedures in a modern lab , etc. hardly constitutes expertise in determining murine metastatic activity and related analytical procedures back in 1960-1961.
Time to go home and read a nice article by Papanicolaou, BJ. And please tell John McAdams that I pray for him every day, as I am a Catholic, just as he is, and aware that we will both stand before God, at which time he will have to explain why he did what he did to me, my family, and my life. And for what expected reward. But perhaps he does not actually believe in God. That would explain a good deal.==
Judyth Vary Bakerr
Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile - James H. Fetzer - 09-04-2010
JIM REPLIES TO JACK'S INQUIRIES ABOUT JUDYTH
Jack,
She was only 19, but she was doing better research on cancer than the
leading experts in the nation. They lured her to New Orleans with the
promise of scholarships and a medical career to enlist her assistance in
their projects, where she began collaborating with Dr. Mary Sherman,
David Ferrie, and Dr. Alton Ochsner, who was the head of the American
Cancer Society. Please do us both the favor and listen to Ed Haslam's
interview with me, which only runs an hour. It will be broadcast Friday
with Jesse Ventura the first hour and Ed the second on "The Real Deal",
revereradio.net, from 5-7 PM/CT. But you can also catch my interview
with Ed Haslam at http://religionandmorality.net/Podcasts/Haslam/ I
urge you to listen, Jack. It provides the background to Judyth and Lee.
Jim
[quote name='Jack White' post='189286' date='Apr 9 2010, 04:58 AM']
Why (serious question) did such an accomplished cancer researcher
abandon her medical pursuits after such a brilliant start? She had the
backing of many prestigious doctors and groups, and her research
might have led to a cure for cancer. Perhaps a great loss to the medical
field that she did not continue her chosen career. I was impressed that
she came up with the idea of dyeing the mice different colors. I bet
that impressed medical research people.
Instead of pursuing the medical field, she now sits in self-imposed exile,
writing memoirs on a Hungarian keyboard. Sad.
Jack[/quote]