Posts: 6,184
Threads: 242
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Steve Franklin Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:The Lovers, Lee and Judyth, get the best lines in this screenplay:
Quote:"We've created a galloping cancer," [said Judyth Baker].… We are developing this weapon to eliminate a head of state. But what if we get Castro? Will they really just throw this stuff away?"
"It could be used as a weapon of mass distraction," [said Lee Harvey Oswald] simply.
"Yes… think I'll Hitler would have loved this, to use against the Jews in those camps. They could say a plague went through."
"Or to eliminate Negroes in Africa," Lee said with a cold tone in his voice."
Page 391, "Me and Lee"
Lines that are overblown, anachronistic, and strike me as hugely unlikely.
If you're calling the term "weapon of mass destruction" anachronistic, there's a decent article at Wikipedia under that heading, which traces the first use in English to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1937. It was used in reference to nuclear weapons as early as 1945.
But the line as transcribed and given to Oswald isn't "weapon of mass destruction"...
And there are other anachronisms in that cod dialogue, such as the prefiguring of AIDS as a racist weapon.
In 1960. Or thereabouts.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Posts: 66
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Steve Franklin Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:The Lovers, Lee and Judyth, get the best lines in this screenplay:
Quote:"We've created a galloping cancer," [said Judyth Baker].… We are developing this weapon to eliminate a head of state. But what if we get Castro? Will they really just throw this stuff away?"
"It could be used as a weapon of mass distraction," [said Lee Harvey Oswald] simply.
"Yes… think I'll Hitler would have loved this, to use against the Jews in those camps. They could say a plague went through."
"Or to eliminate Negroes in Africa," Lee said with a cold tone in his voice."
Page 391, "Me and Lee"
Lines that are overblown, anachronistic, and strike me as hugely unlikely.
If you're calling the term "weapon of mass destruction" anachronistic, there's a decent article at Wikipedia under that heading, which traces the first use in English to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1937. It was used in reference to nuclear weapons as early as 1945.
But the line as transcribed and given to Oswald isn't "weapon of mass destruction"...
And there are other anachronisms in that cod dialogue, such as the prefiguring of AIDS as a racist weapon.
In 1960. Or thereabouts.
Yeah, but "weapon of mass distraction" is clearly a pun on "weapon of mass destruction," if it isn't just a typographical error. Note the phrase "think I'll Hitler would have loved this," by which I suppose was meant "think how Hitler...."
As for "prefiguring of AIDS," well, that would be the point here, wouldn't it? You know, that AIDS was created for just such a purpose, and to get rid of 'all them queers,' too? This idea has been bouncing around for a while now. Even if it's fictional, it wasn't invented by the author. It's out there in the aether. I'm surprised you haven't run into it.
Posts: 6,184
Threads: 242
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Steve - we'll have to disagree.
I stand by my description of the cod dialogue as overblown, anachronistic, and hugely unlikely.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."
Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Posts: 5,506
Threads: 1,443
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
19-05-2011, 09:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-05-2011, 09:03 PM by Ed Jewett.)
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Ed Jewett Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:... the contamination of polio vaccine with SV-40 has been known since 1960. Here's a mainstream scientific account. Full version in the Journal of Clinical Oncology here:
Well, my wife and I asked our primary school librarians to get us a copy of that journal when that article was published, but they couldn't find one. In the intervening years, of course, secondary school, college, family, employment and raising two kids to adulthood took precedence. My wife could now, as director of medical policy for a major health insuror, find a copy or ask her staff to hunt it down.
But I think I'll refrain from forwarding the link to her. :nurse:
Ed - for me the importance of that Journal of Clinical Oncology article does not lie so much in its conclusions about the role of SV40 in cancer, but in the mainstream scientific chronology that it establishes for awareness of the contamination of polio vaccine with SV40.
The article establishes that SV40 contamination was known by 1960. It does this by citing published clinical literature such as:
Sweet BH, Hilleman MR: The vacuolating virus, SV 40. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 105:420-427, 1960
Thus, it is possible that Dr Sherman knew of the SV40 issue at the time of the supposed Ferrie/Sherman/Oswald/Baker exchanges.
However, since I've personally destroyed peer-reviewed articles published in major clinical journals (eg The Lancet), and since I have not been able to study in detail all the relevant scientific literature around mutagenicity, and the credibllity of the design of epidemiological studies, etc etc etc, I merely note the article's conclusion that "there is inadequate evidence at this time to suggest widespread SV40 infection in the population or increased tumor incidence among those individuals who received contaminated vaccine".
The language is most important. In particular the use of the phrase "inadequate evidence" which can be translated as noone really knows.
Jan, we are likely talking to some degree at cross-purposes or non-parallel interests. Of course there was inadequate evidence in 1960 because the polio vaccine wasn't begun to be administered until about 1955 or so. If you are suggesting that I am holding the medical establishment such as the NIH or the American Cancer Society responsible for my wife's recurrent cancer, you are wrong. (Since "Wild Bill" Donovan was active in there somewhere, I guess we can regard it as plausibly deniable, or at least suggest that there are a lot of victims who qualify as inadvertent collateral damage.) I have, in front of me, already transcribed, the eleven pages or so (from the Jim Marrs' book The Rise of the Fourth Reich) on modern medicine since World War II and the role of the Rockefellers even before WWII, the case of aspartame and Searle CEO Donald Rumsfeld, Marcia Angell's work on Big Pharma [The Truth about the Drug Companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it, http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-C...0375508465 ], etc.
It seems to me that, even if Dr. Mary knew of the noted clinical and scientific articles, she had already signed on to what is accurately described as "covert medical research", thus furthering her own career, in which she utilized talent which was knowingly operating covertly or in a clandestine manner. [It was a Faustian bargain, neh? She quite obviously got burned on the deal.] As has been pointed out in many places, the media didn't summon up the cojones to follow any leads or ask any questions so the fact that there was an article in 1960 noting awareness of the contaminated polio vaccine seems to have dropped by the wayside.
I appreciate that you and perhaps others are fixated on the deeper and far more subtle issues of the JFK conspiracy and deep politics and every nuance of dialogue, good or bad, comes into play as you evaluate the controversies inherent in such things as the book "Me and Lee". I'll draw a bye on those debates and watch from the cheap seats in the waiting rooms of chemotherapy and radiation labs where nurses tell me about books like The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, the story of "a poor African American migrant from the tobacco farms of Virginia, who died from a cruelly aggressive cancer at the age of 30 in 1951. A sample of her cancerous tissue, taken without her knowledge or consent, as was the custom then, turned out to provide one of the holy grails of mid-century biology: human cells that could survive--even thrive--in the lab. Known as HeLa cells, their stunning potency gave scientists a building block for countless breakthroughs, beginning with the cure for polio....." , and I tell her about books like Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez and On Becoming an Artist: Reinventing Yourself Through Mindful Creativity by Ellen J. Langer.
And please don't misunderstand that this is some kind of ploy for sympathy, empathy, or expressions of something-or-other. Everyone gets to play the cards that are dealt them; some people have the luck or grace to play Solitaire (or Hearts) from a deck they have learned to shuffle while remaining grounded, relaxed, aware, centered and energized, and others have to play the cards dealt them by a State overrun by "sinister forces".
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Posts: 5,506
Threads: 1,443
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
Steve Franklin Wrote:Yeah, but "weapon of mass distraction" is clearly a pun on "weapon of mass destruction," if it isn't just a typographical error. Note the phrase "think I'll Hitler would have loved this," by which I suppose was meant "think how Hitler...."
As for "prefiguring of AIDS," well, that would be the point here, wouldn't it? You know, that AIDS was created for just such a purpose, and to get rid of 'all them queers,' too? This idea has been bouncing around for a while now. Even if it's fictional, it wasn't invented by the author. It's out there in the aether. I'm surprised you haven't run into it.
Apologies to all involved... I just discovered my error. The "weapon of mass distraction" is not a pun. It is an error that stems from my failure to proof-read intensively with a fine tooth comb because it is an error created through my use of a voice recognition software system. Clearly it's AI program still has some work to do (I haven't used it a lot yet) and it read my "destruction" as distraction.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Posts: 5,506
Threads: 1,443
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Posts: 5,506
Threads: 1,443
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Steve - we'll have to disagree.
I stand by my description of the cod dialogue as overblown, anachronistic, and hugely unlikely.
Jan,
I wholeheartedly agree, and I've made this point before.
This is pure fiction which is fact-based only in the minimalist sense. The dialogue is third-rate and clearly invented to conform to the demands of a pre-existing book proposal.
The major error is that it attempts to ascribe to historical figures insight that was not achieved until decades later -- reminiscent in this regard to claims that JFK was speaking of Illuminati and such when he made what on DPF and elsewhere is the now-infamous "secret societies" speech.
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
No-one could remember dialogue from that long ago, so I have no problem with the posts doubting the dialogue, but what about the actual books? The information contained in each. ( Judyth's and Haslam's) I read both and believe they are important books.
Did you - CD and Jan- read these books?
Dawn
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
I read Haslam's book the month it was first published.
Recently I read Love Story II -- or was it Jonathan Livingstone Oswald?
Haslam's general thesis is highly significant and worthy of further investigation. The author is a deep politics naif -- a fact which diminishes the validity not of his evidence, but rather of his prioritization and interpretations of it.
Judy Judy Judy's book very well may have materialized to counter Haslam even as it purports to support him.
|
