Judyth Baker

[Jack White]

[

There is one very obvious reason why Judith Baker's claims are bullxxxx. Lee Oswald had better taste in women.

Apparently you're choosing to overlook the striking resemblance between Judyth and Marina in '63 in order to push your opinion?

The resemblance is about as close as Judyth and Pamela.

They are all women.

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[

There is one very obvious reason why Judith Baker's claims are bullxxxx. Lee Oswald had better taste in women.

Apparently you're choosing to overlook the striking resemblance between Judyth and Marina in '63 in order to push your opinion?

Hi, Pamela. I think taste goes further than skin deep.

If I have understood Judith's claims correctly, she claims (admits) that she worked on a project whose purpose was to induce cancer in human beings. If this is true, then she deserved to go to jail for a very long time. If this is true, then she is capable of almost anything. If it is not true, then she is a xxxx, or is delusional, as John Simkin suggests.

Is it my opinion that Judith Baker's story is bullxxxx? Yes it is, but I have never tried to push that opinion on anyone, until a couple of days ago when I made a fairly lighthearted riposte to Jack White.

There have been many fakes, delusions and hoaxes in this case, but I have never seen a more obvious fake than Judith Baker.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[

There is one very obvious reason why Judith Baker's claims are bullxxxx. Lee Oswald had better taste in women.

The resemblance is about as close as Judyth and Pamela.

They are all women.

Jack

I am happy to say that I have met Pamela (NID 99) and she is a gorgeous looker who bears no resemblance to the Judith Baker I saw on television.

Mission Impossible: The link below shows a photo of two ladies. One of them bears some resemblance to Judith Baker, while the other does not. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to guess which is which. The first person to respond with the correct answer will get two tickets to the World Cup final (which England will win, thanks to Wayne Rooney's recovery) and these tickets will be in the first row, right on the midfield line.

http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-tit.htm

Edited June 11, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[David Lifton]

I could have predicted that the first answer would come from David "I hate Judyth Baker" Lifton. He's right about one thing: I am not going to waste time on a discussion with him. He has a book to protect. (Wim Dankbaar)

You're quite wrong if you believe I bear some improper animus towards Judyth Baker. Remember: because of a very early introduction via Robert Chapman, I had the opportunity to speak with her, back around March, 2000. In that very first phone call, it became apparent that she was a bull xxxx artist--or, more accurately, a very disturbed person who was dissembling.

In fact--and this also became apparent from that call, and a tape of it, which I played and replayed and studied within the first 24 hours--Judyth had studied the record and was inserting herself into it. In the cat and mouse game I played with her, it became clear she was a fabricator.

It wasn't too long before Paul Hoch out the name for this psychological problem: "pseudo-logia fantastica."

For reasons I will never understand, a lot of people wasted a lot of time going after her story on a point by point basis; all very well, that is their choice. But from the outset, I was impressed by her obviously neurotic behavior, and the fact that, when challenged, she immediately got defensive and truculent.

One of the early flaws in her story came from that very first conversation--her false claim that, after the assassination, she was supposed to meet Oswald at a "fine hotel in Cancun"--when (and this was spotted by Robert Chapman) Cancun was just a spit of land at the time and years away from development.

So no, I don't hate Judyth Baker. I do intensely dislike the kind of fraudster she represents--attempting to foist a fraud on the record, attempting to profit from it, and manipulating the gullible.

I'm told that you invested very substantial financial resources in Judyth, and that is too bad. You should have exercised more "due diligence" (to use a business and legal term) so you would not have wasted time and money on this screwball lady, and instead put it to better use backing truly worthy research and film projects.

I'm sure that was your intention. But unfortunately, you were misled by this con artist. But the fault is not entirely hers, because you are responsible for failing to exercise proper judgment, and taking seriously--and continuing to back--someone who is as phony as a three dollar bill.

[Francesca Akhtar]

The first person to respond with the correct answer will get two tickets to the World Cup final (which England will win, thanks to Wayne Rooney's recovery) and these tickets will be in the first row, right on the midfield line.

http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-tit.htm

Sadly it was not to be.......not to rub it in or anything....

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The first person to respond with the correct answer will get two tickets to the World Cup final (which England will win, thanks to Wayne Rooney's recovery)

Sadly it was not to be.......not to rub it in or anything....

OK Francesca, but I'm still batting .500. I was proven wrong about England and Rooney (I blame the ref., of course), but all the heavy hitters on this forum know that Judith Baker is a big fat fake.

One could say that, after due inquiry into Baker's claims by qualified people like David Lifton, we now have a consensus, with only a few dissenters left. They deserve to be known as the Lunatic Fringe.

Tulipmania, anyone?

PS Watch out for England in the the South African World Cup. Some day one of my football predictions will come true.

[Pamela Brown]

I could have predicted that the first answer would come from David "I hate Judyth Baker" Lifton. He's right about one thing: I am not going to waste time on a discussion with him. He has a book to protect. (Wim Dankbaar)

You're quite wrong if you believe I bear some improper animus towards Judyth Baker. Remember: because of a very early introduction via Robert Chapman, I had the opportunity to speak with her, back around March, 2000. In that very first phone call, it became apparent that she was a bull xxxx artist--or, more accurately, a very disturbed person who was dissembling.

In fact--and this also became apparent from that call, and a tape of it, which I played and replayed and studied within the first 24 hours--Judyth had studied the record and was inserting herself into it. In the cat and mouse game I played with her, it became clear she was a fabricator.

It wasn't too long before Paul Hoch out the name for this psychological problem: "pseudo-logia fantastica."

For reasons I will never understand, a lot of people wasted a lot of time going after her story on a point by point basis; all very well, that is their choice. But from the outset, I was impressed by her obviously neurotic behavior, and the fact that, when challenged, she immediately got defensive and truculent.

One of the early flaws in her story came from that very first conversation--her false claim that, after the assassination, she was supposed to meet Oswald at a "fine hotel in Cancun"--when (and this was spotted by Robert Chapman) Cancun was just a spit of land at the time and years away from development.

So no, I don't hate Judyth Baker. I do intensely dislike the kind of fraudster she represents--attempting to foist a fraud on the record, attempting to profit from it, and manipulating the gullible.

I'm told that you invested very substantial financial resources in Judyth, and that is too bad. You should have exercised more "due diligence" (to use a business and legal term) so you would not have wasted time and money on this screwball lady, and instead put it to better use backing truly worthy research and film projects.

I'm sure that was your intention. But unfortunately, you were misled by this con artist. But the fault is not entirely hers, because you are responsible for failing to exercise proper judgment, and taking seriously--and continuing to back--someone who is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Interesting that David doesn't bother to mention the fact that Judyth has documentation connecting her to LHO in NO in the summer of '63, plus some rather unique credentials qualifying her to run a rogue lab such as she describes. Why is that?

[

There is one very obvious reason why Judith Baker's claims are bullxxxx. Lee Oswald had better taste in women.

The resemblance is about as close as Judyth and Pamela.

They are all women.

Jack

I am happy to say that I have met Pamela (NID 99) and she is a gorgeous looker who bears no resemblance to the Judith Baker I saw on television.

Mission Impossible: The link below shows a photo of two ladies. One of them bears some resemblance to Judith Baker, while the other does not. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to guess which is which. The first person to respond with the correct answer will get two tickets to the World Cup final (which England will win, thanks to Wayne Rooney's recovery) and these tickets will be in the first row, right on the midfield line.

http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-tit.htm

Thank you, Raymond. It was a pleasure to meet you too.

Judyth said to me once that "Marina is still beautiful" while she is not. She once was quite lovely, though, and I do find a resemblance between her and Marina in 1963. Not that that is evidence of her having a relationship with LHO; just a co-incidence, somewhat like having a background in inducing cancer in mice and following complex lab procedures while finding oneself in NOLA in the summer of '63.

[Dave Weaver]

Pamela,

In my opinion, Debra is retaining the tape of Anna Lewis because it enforces Judyth's credibility.

This must also be why Debra has been silent about Anna Lewis, whenever she denounced Judyth as non credible. She should have said that Anna Lewis is non credible too. However, it is no secret that Debra dislikes Judyth.

I have seen the tape and I can fully understand why someone who does not want Judyth to be believed, would not want the tape become public knowledge. After all, Anna is a living witness confirming Judyth's claims about her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, because she saw them together, acting as lovers. It is an absolute shame that Anna was not used in the History Channel program. What exactly transpired there is still a little fuzzy to me.

The real question is why Debra would want to withhold the truth about this part of the Kennedy Asssination. My guess is that her reasons are purely personal, which is still not aan excuse.

In that regard, it is noteworthy that Anna did not like Judyth either. She thought Judyth had an attidude and was a "stuck up girl". But she decided to support Judyth because she would not want to betray the truth, which in my book speaks for her.

Wim

Wim ,

at the same time you and others attacked Debra of withholding the tape, you all had a copy of it, and did not

tell, as far as I know, I took notice of it ca, 2004 when I entered JFK forums.

Is that correct ?

Now, was something removed from the tape, or wasn't it ?

What was removed Wim, Pamela ?

Furthermore,

one should not forget to point out,that it was Judyth herself, who found and did interview Anna Lewis before Martin,Debra,Howard ever heard of her and maybe even Judyth, if I am correct, the same in the case of the Marcello bouncer, she found him, she talked to him first.

So, what do we know what the two Ladies and the lady herself and the gentleman talked about while Martin,Howard,Debra were not around and didn't even know of Judyth's existence ?

Judyth promised at least one person a big car once she made big bucks from her book,remember Jaap

Holzapfel Wim,ask him about the car she promised him.

Very revealing.

Judyth Baker had the chance, and she promised, that the proof would be in the book, that is a fact.

It isn't, and even her back paddeling that the book is unauthorized won't help her IMO, she doesn't

have the proof, and therefore has a big mouth with nothing behind it.

Some things she presents in the book and documents are the following:

She won a science fair

Did kill mice

Went to New Orleans

Married Robert Baker

Worked at Reilys

What is not in the book:

Proof that she had an affair with Oswald

Proof that she worked on a bio weapon to kill Castro

Proof that she knew and worked with Ferrie

Proof that she knew Jack Ruby

The reader is left with the duty of either believing or disbelieving her account, the

book has not changed that, because it doesn't prove the center claims of her story

in regard of Oswald, Ferrie,Ruby and the bio weapon.

Am I wrong in seeing it that way ?

If so, would anyone point out page number where I can find conclusive and without

a doubt proof for her claims, and I am not talking about science fairs, I am talking

about bioweapon,Ferrie,Oswald and Ruby.

She couldn't care less about that IMO, as long as she gets her fee from the book selling, maybe

she has to order some cars or other things she promised, who knows.

Edited September 8, 2006 by Dave Weaver

[William Kelly]

Anne Lewis?

Besides appearing on Black Op Radio with Judyth, who is Anne Lewis?

Is she related to Ron Lewis, the self described "Best friend of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans?"

BK

[Dave Weaver]

Anne Lewis?

Besides appearing on Black Op Radio with Judyth, who is Anne Lewis?

Is she related to Ron Lewis, the self described "Best friend of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans?"

BK

Anna Vincent is a key wittness, if one chose to believe her account, to the Oswald Baker love affair in New Orleans.

Her former husband was David Lewis, friend of Jack Martin, both connected to Guy Bannister.

Wim has an interview with her on his website (wonder if that is from the video some claim Debra Conway is withholding from them)

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm

Edited September 8, 2006 by Dave Weaver

[Pamela Brown]

Anne Lewis?

Besides appearing on Black Op Radio with Judyth, who is Anne Lewis?

Is she related to Ron Lewis, the self described "Best friend of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans?"

BK

No. Anna Lewis was married to David Lewis, associate of Jack Martin and Bannister. David Lewis was questioned by Garrison but said nothing about Judyth. However, what he did say proved out to be false, so it is possible he was trying to protect himself.

Anna came forward recently at Judyth's request. She was pressured to change her statement about seeing Judyth and Lee together, but has resisted the threats.

[Dave Weaver]

BK

No. Anna Lewis was married to David Lewis, associate of Jack Martin and Bannister. David Lewis was questioned by Garrison but said nothing about Judyth. However, what he did say proved out to be false, so it is possible he was trying to protect himself.

Anna came forward recently at Judyth's request. She was pressured to change her statement about seeing Judyth and Lee together, but has resisted the threats.

Pamela,

Quote Martin Shackelford

Was Anna Lewis threatened? She told us on the phone that she was.

End of quote

Later on Martin writes this

Quote

Not absolutely sure by whom, so I'll refrain from any identification,

but threatened:

1) With loss of her job.

2) With having her disabled son taken away.

end of quote

source:

http://groups.google.de/group/alt.assassin...Debra&hl=de

So, here we are again, Martin asks us to believe something as fact, for which he has no proof,

just the words of Anna.

Pamela ,is it your opinion that she was pressured to change her statement and may I see proof that she was in fact threatened and can you tell me who threatened her ?

Furthermore a personal remark:

I find it strange that anyone would need to inform Judyth Baker and ask for permission

if he/she wanted to talk to Anna.

I though America stands for personal freedom, it seems Judyth Baker saw that different.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Dave Weaver

[Terry Mauro]

**********************************************************

Hi Pamela,

I felt compelled to post this latest diatribe being carried on against me by one Barb Junkkarinen. Judyth had referred to me as a lab expert, which I am not, nor do I considered myself to be. I was attempting to explain what Judyth and I spoke about years ago when we compared notes relating to centrifuge, CBC's, ERS [aka sed rates], urinalysis, and how it pertained to my field when performing Red Cell Survival and Plasma Volume studies, each of which I was never given the opportunity to relate, as my first response to Junkkarinen's abusive derision regarding my wording of, or lack of proper clinical laboratory terminology according to her, was censored by MacMadman's goons. I have been attacked with the viciousness of a id dog, for the past two days and warned McAdams' people that if they refused to allow my word to stand that they had better call off their junkyard dog, or I would take it to The Education Forum in order that my voice be heard. Here's what goes on at B.S.'s favorite site. An honorable man, my achin' ass!

"And yes, we conferred on centrifuges, sed rates,

both in urine analysis, as well as plasma supernatant separation from

packed RBC's,"

Which should have been stated and punctuated, "And yes, we conferred on the use of centrifuges: both for analyzing urine samples [urinalysis], and performing C.B.C.'s [Complete Blood Counts] as the use of the centrifuge is for separating the liquid from the sediment, in the case of urinalysis, and the packed blood cells from plasma. Resulting in the form of what is known as supernatant [the soluble liquid reaction of a sample after centrifugation or precipitation of insoluble solids.]

I'm extremely sorry to have offended Junkkarinen's clinical sensibilities by not having stated this to her liking. Maybe you should establish a medical forum section headed by B.J. for the express purpose of debunking anyone who hasn't practiced a particular modality in 40 years, yet once conferred with a like-minded person, knowledgeable of technique and protocol, but "Heavens to Betsy!", didn't state it in the correct terminological sequence of events.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Terry Mauro" <tmauro@pacbell.net>

To: "John McAdams" <jmcadams@panix.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:50 AM

Subject: Re: Judyth's performing as anatomist, surgeon, medical

> I really don't care if it gets posted on your forum or not, but Junkkarinen

> needs to read it in its entirety, herself. And, if she continues to make

> anymore of her snide remarks towards me in a public forum I will personally

> see that she is derided for the smart-aleck she really is, at John Simkins',

> Len Osanic's, Rich DellaRosa's, and Lancer's forums. I'm not promoting

> Judyth here, mind you. I am discussing professionalism in the realm of

> discourse when one chooses to cite one's expertise in the form of verbal

> abuse such as Junkkarinen is doing when she hurls her mockery in my

> direction. She's barking up the wrong tree when she targets me and I think

> you'd better warn her about this, immediately.

>

> Theresa C. Mauro

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "John McAdams" <jmcadams@panix.com>

> To: "Terry Mauro" <tmauro@pacbell.net>

> Cc: "Moderators" <doccrz@netzero.net>; "Moderators Backup"

> <jmca@shell.core.com>; <pfokes@rogers.com>

> Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:13 PM

> Subject: Re: Judyth's performing as anatomist, surgeon, medical

Terry,

We moderators think the third from the last paragraph is rather abusive

toward Barb.

Give us permission to take it out, and we'll put the post on the

newsgroup.

.John

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Terry Mauro wrote:

Barb Junkkarinen wrote:

On 2 Sep 2006 22:34:00 -0400, gatewaymkt@webtv.net (Dixie M Dea)

wrote:

Dixie: As a friend of Terry Mauro's, and i know she never frequents this ng, I

forwarded this post to her, written by Judyth via Martin, which refers

to Terry. I personally know total zero about Medical or Lab aspects,

so I am unable to comment in that regard. I only know that I hate going

into a lab for blood work...:-)

B.J. So do lab people when they find themselves on the opposite end of the

needle.<g>

Dixie: Terry sent me a reply to post on her behalf. I am doing so below, in

its entirety as per her request.

Dixie

Personal Disclaimer Agreement....as per both Terry and I and written

by Terry.....

"that my opinion is not necessarily a reflection of yours,

and that we do have a "best friends" agreement to be able "to agree to

disagree," anyhow, and that we've known each other for almost 10 years

now, as well. Yes, it's been almost that long. I went on line at the

end of 1997, I do believe, and I met you at Prouty's, aside from

Encinitas, and still owe you a dinner out."

From Terry Mauro:

If you can, please answer for me over at McMadman's, that I've been

re-instated back at JFKResearch for the last year and a half.

"I resigned from JFKResearch as monitor because I was too busy with my

PET-CT studies, and a research project I was obliged to conduct for

one of the urologists at Brotman Medical Center, which is now going into

its third year, BTW.

B.J. Very cool ... PET-CT, the new dynamic duo of medicine.

I didn't have time to monitor the board and had enlisted the help

of Dixie and another member, at the time of my resignation."

When I was in contact with Judyth, our talks about laboratory

technology were in discussing protocols for doing CBC's and RIA's,

B.J. Sounds like you girls need to get out more.<g>

...about how much things have changed and progressed in the last 40 years, yet some

remain the same.

We discussed autologous red-cell tagging, and state of the art products

used today, such as Tc0499m with Ultratag for doing cardiac ejection

fractions studies, liver hemangioma SPECT studies, G.I. Bleed Localizations, etc.

B.J. Am not familiar with Tc0499m. Have heard of Tc99 and Tc99m. But then I

have only surface knowledge ... and pretty old at that ... of anything

nuclear medicine/radiology, etc. Clinical lab is my bailiwick.

And yes, we conferred on centrifuges, sed rates, both in urine analysis, as well as

plasma supernatant separation from packed RBC's,

B.J.: Am I being tested? This is funny.<g>

B.J.: Sed rates in "urine analysis" [uh...urinalysis] ... and on plasma

taken off in preparing units of packed cells? Do tell.

B.J.: I must be reading it wrong, but it sure looks like that's what it says

to me. Very funny.<g>

B.J.: Personally, I've never been involved in, nor do I know any hospital

clinical lab that is involved in, preparation of various components

for transfusion ... packed red cells being the component most used in

transfusion situations. Where I live, the American Red Cross blood

bank is the main center used. Hospital labs receive their regular

order once or twice a week ... and call in between for any

special/emergency needs. The Red Cross collects and processes

autologous units too.

B.J.: I sure hope they don't waste that supernatant plasma after doing a sed

rate on it, and process it for FFP instead. :-)

B.J.: [reinserting in part]:

And yes, we conferred on centrifuges,..........

..... the grids and microscopes used to do the counts on these

specimens.

B.J.: Must be some crazy chamber and dilution to do a cell count on packed

RBCs (and go figure why)......have never seen anyone attempt an actual

chambered cell count as part of a "urine analysis" either.

Judyth seemed quite knowledgeable with regard to lab

technology especially circa the early 60's.

B.J.: I've noticed. :-)

As I've stated above, equipment evolves, but there are some techniques

that remain the same, especially in smaller labs, or possibly in even

depressed areas of the U.S., or in Third World nations. Every place

can't be Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, or Johns Hopkins, or Emory, for

that matter.

B.J.: No quibble here on that.

B.J.: Aside to Dixie ... thanks for sending Judyth's commentary to Terry and

posting her response here. I don't see how it relates to what Judyth

said, but I certainly enjoyed reading it. Rather needed a chuckle

after watching Andre Aggasi in his last professional match this

morning. :-( Was nice to sign on find this.<g>

Barb :-)

...So, if you will, please copy and paste this e-mail in its entirety

over at McAdams because, as you already know, I have no use for his

credentials as a professor of whatever the hell he claims to be an

expert of.

Thanks, Doo.

Love ya,

T.

Group: alt.assassination.jfk Date: Sat, Sep 2, 2006, 1:44pm (PDT+3)

From: mshack@cnc.net (Martin Shackelford)

Some comments from Judyth:

Remember, we were working with a specific KIND of cancer

ONLY, and I had been working for MONTHS in Gainesville using a

COMBINATION of various tests, as described, to INDICATE THE LIKELIHOOD

that the blood cell stats REFLECTED the presence of cancer.

As for the statements about the blood sedimentation tests she is

familiar with, it says clearly they had ALREADY PREPARED the blood

samples, and in fact, STANDARD sed tests, which this individual has

been describing, had ALREADY BEEN DONE.

The fact that this person didn't understand that the pellets being

created were later used to see how long/what percentage of the

radioactive tagged blood was STILL PRESENT is unfortunate. At the same

time, i needed to check the blood plasma in the spun-down portion of

the blood sample which produced the pellet.

The STANDARDIZED test had been around for many decades, yes. The

critic writing this ASSUMES that I spent MONTHS learning how to DO a simple

sedimentation test, instead of the fact that I was doing research for a

whole YEAR at U of FL determining ADAPTATIONS of the sed test to use

to try to detect the presence of cancer.

it's like saying all we have is penicillin when I was, in fact,

developing new antibiotics. The whole premise about my not knowing how

to do this kind of blood cell differentiation under the microscope stinks.

I was doing that way back in high school as part of my cancer

research training. What did she think that training consisted of--

feeding my mice kibbles? Why did I have to spend so many hours at

Manatee memorial Hospital? Why did I have to spend so many hours in

labs? Just sitting there doing nothing?

I will reply IN DETAIL to each of these concerns, but this person

assumes i was using a STANDARDIZED SEDIMENTATION TEST. I used a

COMBINATION OF TESTS and an DAPTED TEST. As for the lab reading these

tests, the prisoner I saw was isolated form others, and the tests being

conducted on him and perhaps, as I firmly believe, others, did not

involve the materials that were going to be TAKEN AWAY SECRETLY TO

TAKEN AWAY SECRETLY TO OCHSNER'S. This could NOT be done in the OPEN,

as it would have linked Ochsner to these experiments, a big no-no.

But Ochsner STILL wanted the bloodwork, and he wanted me to do readings to check if the

standardized tests had been properly conducted, for starters (why risk sending the

materials to Ochsner if somebody flubbed on the samples themselves?).

I was able to assure that the samples matched the stats. As for my being

there a half-hour, I repeat, the work I had to do took a very short time

on the samples, the rest was checking the stats and making sure all

the paperwork matched, etc. I am a speed reader and could go through

everything in seconds. None of this is within the ken or understanding

of this person.

By the way, my friend Joanne Barbera was a lab tech FOR YEARS and did

similar testing for a toxin lab here in Arixona. She and I discussed

some of my procedures and she is a firm supporter of my testimony.

Joanne has stood by my side. Terry Mauro is another lab expert who

corresponded with me for quite awhile and who was an EXPERT at blood

sedimentation tests, etc. She was basically kicked of DellaRosa's group

not long after coming to my defense. Terry KNOWS the methodology I was

using was sound and that I was using a VARIANT of the standard sed

test.

The critic mentions CANCER with a big paintbrush. i repeat, the tests

were fine-honed to show a certain profile that meant the specific

cancer in which we were interested was PROBABLY ALIVE and was PROBABLY the

cause of the patient's current distress. The blood counts would help

show that this was not caused by something else. It was one of a series

of tests that were conducted so that these could be used to track Fidel

Castro's own bloodwork without being noticed.

The very ordinariness of this kind of test which, with proper training,

and some modifications that wouldn't be noticed, meant you could

detect if the cancer PROBABLY was causing the damage, a diagnostic tool

irresistible to Ochsner's sensibilities.

****************************************************************************

B.J.: "Sed rates in "urine analysis" [uh...urinalysis] ... and on plasma

taken off in preparing units of packed cells? Do tell.

B.J.: I must be reading it wrong, but it sure looks like that's what it says

to me. Very funny.<g>"

T.M.: Excuse me for indescriminantly lumping ESR's in before urinalysis. It

was a typographical error, on my part. Laugh your head off, if you want.

B.J.: "I sure hope they don't waste that supernatant plasma after doing a sed

rate on it, and process it for FFP instead. :-)"

T.M.: The supernatant is poured off after centrifuge. What do you want? A

dissertation on laboratory technology of 40 years ago? ROFLYAO

B.J.: "Must be some crazy chamber and dilution to do a cell count on packed

RBCs (and go figure why)......have never seen anyone attempt an actual

chambered cell count as part of a "urine analysis" either."

T.M.: I'm sorry for not having made myself crystal-clear on this for you. I

was referring to a simple CBC, after it's been spun down [THE SUPERNATANT

POURED OFF], put on a glass slide, and how it's counted under a microscope.

We even employed simple hand clickers to tally up the number of different

types of RBC's, as well as the different types of WBC's, platelets, etc., found

in the CBC specimen. That's why it's called a Complete Blood Count,

as you already know. Same thing with a urinalysis, where you spin it down,

place the sediment on a glass slide under a microscope, and count the number

of casts, as well as threads, and WBC's which may be present, indicating an infection.

Any janitor can be taught to do this. This isn't rocket science and can be taught

in any high school chemistry class.

T.M.: The possibility that Judyth excelled in this area of her studies prior

to entering university is not all that remote, considering the number

of high school students completing their basic college preparatory

courses, and entering university while still in their junior and senior years.

The fact that Judyth was of this caliber of intellect in high school is cited in

her hometown newspapers.

B.J.: "Am not familiar with Tc0499m. Have heard of Tc99 and Tc99m. But then I

have only surface knowledge ... and pretty old at that ... of anything

nuclear medicine/radiology, etc. Clinical lab is my bailiwick."

T.M.: Another typographical error, on my part. FWIW, Tc99mo4, or 99mTC04

stands for Technecium99m Pertechnetate, T 1/2 = 6.05 hours, with an

energy level of 140 kev. It's known as the "workhorse" in Nuclear

Medicine due to its low level of energy and short half-life, making it

the nuclide of choice to tag the various diagnostic imaging agents used

in the field of nuclear and molecular imaging.

T.M.: I don't possess a Phi Beta Kappa key, nor I do not consider myself to

be on the same intellectual strata as Judyth, who IMHO, was obviously a

gifted child. Are you aware of the fact that her father worked at Los

Alamos [and not as a janitor, either]? Intellectual astuteness,

theoretically cannot be pinpointed as genetically inheritable, but if

one is a product of one's environment, as well as its influence, then

it's quite feasible that Judyth may have had a good head start in the

right direction, from a scientific standpoint.

J.V.B.: "Terry Mauro is another lab expert who

corresponded with me for quite awhile and who was an EXPERT at blood

sedimentation tests, etc."

T.M.: I studied Laboratory Technology, at the age of 17 in 1962, in my first

year at college, but I don't consider myself to be an "expert."

T.M.: In the field of the sciences, medical, as well as, physical, there are

aspects that have been applied and tested continually, that have

remained constant in their results. These are what I consider to be

the "known" applications. Then, there are those areas that will remain

hypothetical due, in part, to the nature of their elements, and

continual inquiry resulting in variable explanations or theories for

their applications. Such as, quantum physics, i.e., "quarks, muons,

leptons, string theory", and "edge of the universe building blocks of

life theory." PBS Nova is quite a useful venue for educating those who

are interested, or have a background relative to the study.

T.M.: Therefore, while you have constant flux in certain aspects of

scientific inquiry, you also have tried and true methodology. The field

of medical science and research falls somewhere in between, as there's

always room for improvement and "fine-tuning," so to speak, as better

diagnostic tools, therapies, pharmaceuticals, etc. are developed and

implemented through the field of research.

T.M.: Are you an "expert," Barbara? Are you a Phd., or a doctorate? I'm not

being snide, I'm merely asking.

B.J.: "Aside to Dixie ... thanks for sending Judyth's commentary to Terry and

posting her response here. I don't see how it relates to what Judyth

said, but I certainly enjoyed reading it. Rather needed a chuckle

after watching Andre Aggasi in his last professional match this

morning. :-( Was nice to sign on find this.<g>

Barb :-)"

T.M.: Being that my friend, Dixie was kind enough to post this for me, your

condescending, smart-aleck diatribe comes off making you sound like

some kind of a harpy. Your lack of professionalism, when broaching the

subject of research is deplorable, regardless of how many flaws you

feel you may be finding in someone else's description of their

methodology. How about showing a modicum of decorum when debating your

field of expertise, instead of riding rough-shod over someone else's.

You have an obligation to your profession to remain objective and

non-abusive when attempting to cite your opinion.

T.M.: I reserve my ascerbic attacks for those exhibiting blatant banality or

outright stupidity concerning magic bullet trajectory, lone assassin

lunacy, etc. When it comes to discussing my profession, I attempt to

remain congenial and open to inquiry. I feel that I'm obliged to remain

so and took an oath to never tarnish my credentials or licensure.

T.M.: Maybe, that's why I no longer frequent these sites, and have especially

avoided this type of extreme venue. And, in reality, working between

three different medical centers leaves little room for me to spend time

perusing the assassination anymore. As far as I'm concerned, there's

just so much one can do, especially with the present regime in power,

and the decline in personal freedoms becoming so inherent in what used

to be a "democratic republic," a contradiction in terms, in and of

itself.

Theresa C. Mauro

FWIW

************************************************************

And, I will also concede when I've made a mistake:

1. For putting out information that was incorrect and unclear. i.e. Complete Blood Count procedure and protocol.

2. For confusing Plasma Volume processing [a Nuclear Medicine procedure] with CBC processing and procedure.

3. For not being clear on ESR procedure and protocol, aka "sed rates."

For those who are interested, I have listed the CBC protocol below:

Complete Blood Count

A complete blood count (CBC) or full blood count (FBC) or full blood exam (FBE) is a test requested by a doctor or other medical professional that gives information about the cells in a patient's blood. A CBC is also known as a "hemogram".

The cells that circulate in the bloodstream are generally divided into three types: white blood cells (leukocytes), red blood cells (erythrocytes), and platelets or thrombocytes. Abnormally high or low counts may indicate the presence of many forms of disease, and hence blood counts are amongst the most commonly performed blood tests in medicine.

* 1 Methods

o 1.1 Samples

o 1.2 Automated blood count

o 1.3 Manual blood count

* 2 Results

o 2.1 Red cells

o 2.2 White cells

o 2.3 Platelets

* 3 Interpretation

Methods

Samples

Blood is taken in a test tube containing an anticoagulant (EDTA, sometimes citrate) to stop it from clotting, and transported to a laboratory.

In the past, counting the cells in a patient's blood was performed manually, by viewing a slide prepared with a sample of the patient's blood under a microscope (a blood film, or peripheral smear). Nowadays, this process is generally automated by use of an automated analyser, with only specific samples being examined manually.

Automated blood count

The blood is well mixed (though not shaken) and placed on a special rack on the analyzer. This instrument has many different components to analyze different elements in the blood. The cell counting component counts the numbers and types of different cells within the blood. The results are printed out or sent to a computer for review by a technologist.

Blood counting machines aspirate a very small amount of the specimen through narrow tubing. Within this tubing, there are sensors that count the number of cells going through it, and can identify the type of cell. The two main sensors used are light detectors, and electrical impedance. One way the instrument can tell what type of blood cell is present is by size. Other instruments measure different characteristics of the cells to categorize them.

Because an automated cell counter samples and counts so many cells, the results are very precise. However, certain abnormal cells in the blood may be identified incorrectly, and require the trained eye of a medical technologist. Medical technologists are specially trained to review the instrument's results and identify any abnormal cells the instrument could not categorize.

In addition to counting, measuring, and analyzing red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets, automated hematology analyzers also measure the amount of hemoglobin in our blood and within each red blood cell. This information can be very helpful to a physician who, for example, is trying to identify the cause of a patient's anemia. If the red cells are smaller or larger than normal, or if there's a lot of variation in the size of the red cells, this data can help guide the direction of further testing and expedite the diagnostic process so patients can get the treatment they need quickly.

Automated blood counting machines include the Beckman Coulter LH series, Sysmex XE-2100, Bayer ADVIA 120, and the Abbott Cell-Dyn series.

Manual blood count

Counting chambers that hold a specified volume of diluted blood (as there are far too many cells if it is not diluted) are used to calculate the number of red and white cells per litre of blood.

To identify the numbers of different white cells, a blood film is made, and a large number of white cells (at least 100) are counted. This gives the percentage of cells that are of each type. By multiplying the percentage with the total number of white blood cells, the absolute number of each type of white cell can be obtained.

The advantage of manual counting by a medical technologist is that blood cells that may be misidentified by an automated counter can be identified visually. It is, however, subject to human error because so few cells are counted compared with automated analysis.

Results

For examples of standard values, see Reference ranges for common blood tests#Hematology.

A complete blood count will normally include:

Red cells

* Total red blood cells - The number of red cells is given as an absolute number per litre.

* Hemoglobin - The amount of hemoglobin in the blood, expressed in grams per litre. (Low hemoglobin is called anemia.)

* Hematocrit or packed cell volume (PCV) - This is the fraction of whole blood volume that consists of red blood cells.

* Mean corpuscular volume (MCV) - the average volume of the red cells, measured in femtolitres. Anemia is classified as microcytic or macrocytic based on whether this value is above or below the expected normal range. Other conditions that can affect MCV include thalassemia and reticulocytosis.

* Mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) - the average amount of hemoglobin per red blood cell, in picograms.

* Mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) - the average concentration of hemoglobin in the cells.

* Red blood cell distribution width (RDW) - a measure of the variation of the RBC population

White cells

* Total white blood cells - All the white cell types are given as a percentage and as an absolute number per litre.

A complete blood count with differential will also include:

* Neutrophil granulocytes - May indicate bacterial infection. May also be raised in acute viral infections.

* Lymphocytes - Higher with some viral infections such as glandular fever and. Also raised in lymphocytic leukaemia CLL.

* Monocytes - May be raised in bacterial infection

* Eosinophil granulocytes - Increased in parasitic infections.

* Basophil granulocytes

A manual count will also give information about other cells that are not normally present in peripheral blood, but may be released in certain disease processes.

Platelets

* Platelet numbers are given, as well as information about their size and the range of sizes in the blood.

Interpretation

Certain disease states are defined by an absolute increase or decrease in the number of a particular type of cell in the bloodstream. For example:

Type of Cell Increase Decrease

Red Blood Cells (RBC) erythrocytosis or polycythemia anemia or erythroblastopenia

White Blood Cells (WBC): leukocytosis leukopenia

-- lymphocytes -- lymphocytosis -- lymphocytopenia

-- granulocytes: -- granulocytosis -- granulocytopenia or agranulocytosis

-- --neutrophils -- --neutrophilia -- --neutropenia

-- --eosinophils -- --eosinophilia -- --eosinopenia

Platelets thrombocytosis thrombocytopenia

All cell lines --- pancytopenia

Many disease states are heralded by changes in the blood count:

* leukocytosis can be a sign of infection.

* thrombocytopenia can result from drug toxicity.

* pancytopenia is generally as the result of decreased production from the bone marrow, and is a common complication of cancer chemotherapy.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_blood_count"

Category: Blood tests

Views

* This page was last modified 12:13, 6 September 2006.

My apologies to Barbara Junkkarinen

Theresa C. Mauro

Edited September 11, 2006 by Terry Mauro

[Michael Hogan]

Thanks to Tree Frog for this heads up.

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

The Final Chapter: The Love Affair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G09K4Ycju8A...ted&search=

[Dawn Meredith]

Thanks to Tree Frog for this heads up.

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

The Final Chapter: The Love Affair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G09K4Ycju8A...ted&search=

Mike:

That's great, thanx for posting this. I trust Frog has the other two cencored hours too?

Would be great to post them on a thread here. History Channel can exercise all the damn cencorship they wish but we will get around it and air these three hours. One down, two left.

Dawn