09-04-2010, 01:06 AM
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
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