Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

This is the first posting in a long while I can agree with. I am suspicious of

ANY VACCINE promoted by the government...particularly the annual FLU

VACCINE DE JOUR. I believe my grandmother was severely damaged by

taking the SABIN POLIO VACCINE. I have never taken a polio or flu vaccine

touted by the government. I think they are under-tested scams designed

by profit-seekers and propagandized by the government.

However, I think injecting this into the JVB story is a distraction to provide

a humanitarian motive.

Jack

FOR THOSE WITH A SERIOUS INTEREST IN RESEARCH

(FORWARDED BY JUDYTH)

CANCER-CAUSING PIG VIRUS - RECALL OF VACCINE

The FDA Shuts Down Common Infant Vaccine After Startling Discovery

Posted by Dr. Mercola | April 17 2010 | 26,611 views

“U.S. federal health authorities recommended … that doctors suspend using Rotarix, one of two vaccines licensed in the U.S. against rotavirus, saying the vaccine is contaminated with material from a pig virus,” CNN reports.

The Rotarix vaccine, which is made by GlaxoSmithKline and was approved by the FDA in 2008, has already been given to about 1 million U.S. children along with 30 million worldwide. The vaccine was found to contain DNA from porcine circovirus 1.

“The FDA learned about the contamination after an academic research team using a novel technique to look for viruses in a range of vaccines found the material in GlaxoSmithKline's product and told the company,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg told CNN.

Sources:

CNN March 22, 2010

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Follow me on twitter Follow me on facebook

One million U.S. children, and about 30 million worldwide, have already received GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix vaccine. Now a research team has discovered it is contaminated with “a substantial amount” of DNA from a pig virus.

What is pig virus DNA doing in a vaccine intended to prevent rotavirus disease, which causes severe diarrhea and dehydration?

It’s anybody’s guess, although CNN reported that GlaxoSmitthKline detected the substance in the cell bank and the seed used to make the vaccine, “suggesting its presence from the early stages of vaccine development.”

It is actually common for vaccines to contain various animal matter, including foreign animal tissues containing genetic material (DNA/RNA), but even FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg told CNN:

"It [Pig virus DNA] should not be in this vaccine product and we want to understand how it got there.

It's not an easy call and we spent many long hours debating the pros and cons but, because we have an alternative product and because the background rates of this disease are not so severe in this country, we felt that the judicious thing to do was to take a pause, to really ask the critical questions about what this material was doing in the vaccine, how it got there."

Disturbing Findings in Rotarix and Two Other Common Childhood Vaccines

Dr. Eric Delwart is the researcher who, along with colleagues, made the discovery of contamination in Rotarix. Their intent was reportedly to “show that live attenuated vaccine only contained the expected viral genomes and no other,” but what they found told a different story.

Using new technology to test eight infectious attenuated viral vaccines, the results showed three of the vaccines contained “unexpected viral sequences”:

1. A measles vaccine was found to contain low levels of the retrovirus avian leukosis virus

2. Rotateq, Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, was found to contain a virus similar to simian (monkey) retrovirus

3. Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKine’s rotavirus vaccine) was found to contain “significant levels” of porcine cirovirus 1

So in their tests, nearly 40 percent of the vaccines they tested contained viral contaminants. The implications of these findings on the alleged safety of the vaccine supply remains to be seen, but clearly there is contamination occurring that was a complete surprise to researchers, health officials and vaccine manufacturers alike.

As Barbara Loe Fisher, founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), said in her commentary on the Rotarix contamination issue:

“There are lots of questions about how the manufacturer of Rotarix vaccine and the FDA both missed the pig virus DNA contaminating the original seed stock and all doses of Rotarix vaccine given to more than one million American children in the past few years.

Is there state-of-the-art technology that is being used by private laboratories but not by drug companies and the FDA?

Why did the independent team of scientists, who found the contamination, notify the vaccine manufacturer first rather than also immediately reporting their finding directly to the FDA?

What about the significance of finding bird viral DNA in measles vaccine and the monkey viral DNA in RotaTeq vaccine?”

There are clearly a lot of unanswered questions right now. At the very least, it certainly makes you wonder what other “unknown” contaminants are lurking in vaccines. At worst, we could be injecting children with substances that could potentially cause serious health problems down the road.

Animal Ingredients Common in Vaccines

You should know that it is very common for vaccine manufacturers to use cells from animals and birds in their manufacturing process.

To put this in perspective, Barbara Loe Fisher has explained what animal material is par for the course in manufacturing the Rotarix vaccine for your children:

“Rotarix is a genetically engineered vaccine that GSK created by isolating human rotavirus strain infecting a child in Cincinnati and using African Green monkey kidney cells to produce the original viral seed stock from which all Rotarix vaccine has been made.

In the FDA licensing process, Rotarix had to meet certain FDA standards, that included demonstrating the vaccine was not contaminated with, for example TSE (Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathy or “mad cow” disease, a brain wasting disease) or with cow viruses because bovine (cow) serum was used to prepare the original viral seed stock.

Porcine trypsin, an enzyme in the pancreatic juice of a pig, was also used to make the viral seed stock.”

So the fact that Rotarix contains animal material is not a surprise … it’s the type of animal material, an unexpected variety, that has even the FDA raising their eyebrows.

Why it’s Dangerous to Have Various Animal DNA in Vaccines …

Both the FDA and GlaxoSmithKline spokespeople continue to state that no safety risk has been uncovered from the contamination, at least not yet.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, said “a substantial amount” of the DNA was found in the vaccine. But, he stressed, “there is no evidence that it causes any disease. … There is no evidence that it ever does anything.”

Dr. Paul Offit added, “The PCV1 virus they found is an orphan virus, i.e., it is not associated with disease”.

Of course there are no studies provided or have ever been done to show this, it doesn’t stop them from making these statements without any facts to back up their safety assurance, despite the fact that SV40 from monkeys has been associated with cancer in multiple studies.

History has shown that it can indeed be very dangerous when an animal virus unintentionally enters the vaccine supply.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the polio vaccine, which is still given in the United States, typically four times during a child's first 16 months of life, was widely contaminated with the monkey virus, SV40, which had gotten into the vaccine during the manufacturing process (monkey kidney cells, where SV40 thrived, were used to develop polio vaccines).

In lab tests, the virus was found to cause several different types of cancer, including brain cancer, and now SV40 is showing up in a variety of human cancers such as lung, brain, bone and lymphatic.

According to the authors of The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed, leading scientists and government officials turned their heads to repeated studies showing that SV40 was in the vaccine, and even today some well-known agencies are still dismissing study results.

The virus is even showing up in children too young to have received the contaminated vaccine, and some experts are now suggesting the contaminated virus may have been in the polio vaccine up until as late as 1999.

It is because of risks like this that Barbara Loe Fisher said:

“With mounting evidence that cross-species transfer of viruses can occur, the United States should no longer be using animal tissues to produce vaccines.”

This is also the same reason why Donald Miller, a cardiac surgeon and professor of surgery at the University of Washington, suggests in his more User-Friendly Vaccination Schedule that if you choose to get your child vaccinated against polio, you request only an inactivated (dead) virus vaccine that is cultured in human cells, not monkey kidney cells.

The United States no longer uses the live oral polio vaccine, so parents don't really have to ask for the injected version. However, if you live internationally, this is still an issue.

Are the Benefits of Rotarix Worth the Risks?

Even without a potential contamination scare, there are serious risks to every vaccine. So before vaccinating you really need to be certain that the benefits will outweigh those risks.

In the case of Rotarix, along with RotaTeq (a similar vaccine made by Merck), the benefits are very questionable, especially if you live in the United States or another developed country.

Rotavirus is very contagious and does cause more than 500,000 deaths in young children each year, but this is mostly in developing countries. In the United States, rotavirus is responsible for only “several dozen” deaths a year, according to Hamburg.

Typically, when a child in the United States contracts rotavirus, and most do, only rest and fluids are required to recover. This infection also provides natural immunity that will protect your child for life.

As NVIC writes

“The CDC estimates that, by age 3, almost every US child has had a case of rotavirus. Once a child has been infected with a strain of rotavirus, he or she develops antibodies and is either immune for life or has a milder case if infected with that same strain in the future.

Most healthy children, who are infected with several strains of rotavirus in the first few years of life, develop lifelong natural immunity to rotavirus infection.”

The rotavirus vaccine, meanwhile, has shown little benefit for rotavirus rates in the United States. According to NVIC:

“Today, even though almost all US infants receive vaccines for rotavirus, and despite efforts to improve the management of childhood rotavirus-associated diarrhea, hospitalizations of children in the U.S. with the disease have not significantly declined in the past two decades.”

Along with showing little benefit for a disease that is typically entirely treatable with fluids and rest, a recent drug review by the FDA found that Rotarix is associated with a significant increase in pneumonia-related deaths in children, compared to a placebo.

So with this particular vaccine, children are taking on serious risks with what appears to be very little benefit -- and that was before the contamination was uncovered.

The moral of the story?

Whatever you do, please do your homework before subjecting your children to any vaccine. A great way to get started is to simply use the Search Feature at the top of each of my Web pages and search my site as it contains a litany of research on vaccine safety, and the lack thereof.

[Pamela Brown]

Jack White said:

This is the first posting in a long while I can agree with. I am suspicious of

ANY VACCINE promoted by the government...particularly the annual FLU

VACCINE DE JOUR.

Have you taken time to consider the curious fact that when Jack Ruby was diagnosed with cancer he said that he thought he had been injected with cancer cells?

[Jack White]

Jack,

A few questions for my friend, who has evidently gone off the deep end:

A FEW ANSWERS FOR MY FRIEND WHO HAS GONE OFF THE DEEP END:

(1) Are you now practicing psychology/psychiatry without a license?

NO. YOU OVERLOOKED THE WORD "IF". NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN OPINION.

(2) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

NO, THANK GOODNESS! SHE IS NOT MY TYPE.

(3) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

OF COURSE. IT WAS ALMOST AS BAD AS HIS "CORSICAN MAFIA CONNECTION" SEGMENT.

(4) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

YES. SOME VERY INTERESTING MATERIAL MIXED WITH LOTS OF SPECULATION.

(5) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

NO. I NO LONGER BUY BOOKS, SINCE I WILL BE DONATING MY COLLECTION TO A UNIVERSITY.

ALL OF MY 18 BOOKSHELVES ARE FULL AND RUNNING OVER, AND I HAVE NO MORE SHELF SPACE.

PLUS, AT MY AGE, READING A BOOK MAKES ME SLEEPY.

(6) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

NO. I TRY TO AVOID ANY MENTION OF THIS WOMAN, WHO IS MORE TO BE PITIED THAN CENSURED.

(7) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

NO, I HAVE MORE IMPORTANT USES OF MY TIME.

(8) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

NO, I HAVE MORE IMPORTANT USES OF MY TIME.

(9) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

NO, I HAVE MORE IMPORTANT USES OF MY TIME.

(10) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

ARE YOU KIDDING? MY OPINIONS ARE BASED ON BEING INFORMED, NOT ON RESEARCHING MY EVERY OPINION.

I READ A LOT; THAT IS BEING INFORMED. READING IS SECONDARY RESEARCH. I WOULD NEVER WASTE A

MOMENT'S TIME DOING PRIMARY RESEARCH REGARDING THE VERACITY OF THIS POOR WOMAN. I ONLY

READ THE RESEARCH OF OTHERS ON THE SUBJECT. MY QUESTION: HAVE YOU DONE PRIMARY RESEARCH

ON HER CLAIMS, OR DO YOU JUST ACCEPT EVERY WORD SHE SAYS?

(11) Are you and Barb Junkkarinen now collaborators?

I DO NOT KNOW HER, HAVE NEVER MET HER, AND DISAGREE WITH ALL HER OPINIONS WHICH SIDE WITH TINK

THOMPSON. BUT SHE SEEMS TO HAVE DONE PRIMARY RESEARCH ON JVB WHICH SUPPORTERS HAVE NOT DONE.

(12) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

THE VALUE OF ALL OPINIONS IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE PERSON HOLDING THE OPINIONS.

OPINIONS CAN BE BASED ON MANY THINGS, SUCH AS OBSERVATION, HISTORY, KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE,

READING, RESEARCH, PREJUDICES AND OTHER THINGS. A PERSON OF HIGH INTELLIGENCE WILL TEND TO HAVE

BETTER OPINIONS THAN A PERSON OF LOWER INTELLIGENCE, GIVEN THE SAME INPUT. THEREFORE INPUT AND

INTELLIGENCE WILL PRODUCE A VARIATION IN OPINIONS. PREJUDICES AND PERSONAL BACKGROUNDS CAN

CREATE DIFFERENT OPINIONS EVEN WITH THE SAME INPUT. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS,

LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES, AND JVB SUPPORTERS AND CRITICS.

JACK

Jim

If I were an armchair psychiatrist instead of an armchair detective, I would

diagnose this affair as a case of a person with an extreme need to feel

sexually attractive. At the center of the story is a wild immediate sexual

attraction between two strangers, wild passionate trysts arranged by crime

bosses, promises to meet in romantic places for a honeymoon (never mind

that both were married). Wild illicit sex with a historic figure is not uncommon.

How many men had such thoughts about Marilyn Monroe, for instance? Another

form of this is women who fall in love with convicted murderers. The handsome

Ted Bundy, convicted mass murderer, was besieged with romantic mail from

women.

It is more than a passing observation that most of JVB's most passionate

devotees are MEN who have met her in person or spoken at length with her

on the phone. To these she seems to have some sort of charisma that appeals

to some persons and not others...much like "falling in love" defies rational

explanation. She has "something" which makes certain types of men "fall

in love" with her. Her passionate supporters show every sign of "being in love".

If her tales DID NOT INCLUDE THE ALLEGED ROMANCE, they might be much

more believable. It is unlikely that the romance happened, so it is unlikely

that all the other imaginings happened.

It reminds me somewhat of my 27-year career with a large ad agency. In

addition to being the lead art director, I also was "personnel director" (largely

because nobody else wanted to do it). It was my task to interview all job

seekers and recommend hiring or not. I developed a knack of recognizing

phonies as well as "comers". I am proud that much of our agency success

came from the great team I helped assemble. At our peak, we had 50+

employees; today the agency has fewer than ten. Only once did I pick a

dud. She was a dazzling brunette who claimed to be an artist. She had

been recommended by the son of a client. I allowed myself to be more

impressed by her beauty than by her art samples and recommended that

we hire her. Annette did not last three months. She was a phony. Ever

since I learned that lesson, I pay more attention to credentials than to

personal appeal. And I think I know a phony better than most.

Jack

Mr Fetzer,

Early on, I asked you a couple of questions. So far, there has been no answers. As this thread - hopefully - is fading out, I'd like to repeat those questions to you.

1. Where do you draw the line? When are you going to realize that this is not a question of "Judyth detractors"?

2. What conclusions do you draw from her consistent lying about her asylum process? None?

And, thirdly, as a matter of this thread:

3. Have you perhaps now realized that you are not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the JFK assassination research? When you instantly dismiss Mr Harris, of whom "you've never heard", as a phony, could it possibly occur to you that things are happening without your knowledge? And have been, for years?

Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths

for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich

finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her

so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She

will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here

is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened

years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of us.

Jack

Mr White,

It seems to me that many are those who have been blinded by JVB. Most notably those who have met her in person. Your description of "a moving target" is indeed exactly what this is about. The story keeps changing, and the attempts to discredit those who disagree, are becoming more outlandish day by day.

DellaRosa, Ferrell and others who knew her, all seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Mr Fetzer stated very early in this thread that "he didn't know her story". At best, this explains why he's now apparently surprised by the number of people now coming "out of the woodwork".

[Dean Hagerman]

(3) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

OF COURSE. IT WAS ALMOST AS BAD AS HIS "CORSICAN MAFIA CONNECTION" SEGMENT.

Perfect Jack, I agree

[Michael Hogan]

The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed

by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher

St. Martin's Press; (1st edition April 29, 2004)

From Publishers Weekly:

Journalists Bookchin and Schumacher argue that for nine years, from 1954 to 1963, almost every dose of polio vaccine produced in the world and the 98 million Americans who received polio vaccinations was contaminated with a cancer-causing virus from the monkey kidneys used to develop the vaccine. Although the polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk virtually ended polio as a threatening disease, the authors detail how "the screening techniques and observation periods that Salk and the vaccine manufacturers employed were not capable of always catching the contaminants." This sordid story spells out how repeated research studies showing that the "SV40" virus was in the vaccine were dismissed by federal health officials, so that "there would be no warning to consumers that the vaccine they and their children were receiving contained a live monkey virus whose effect on humans was entirely unknown." In the second part, the authors contend that even today such organizations as the National Institutes of Health continue to dismiss study results, even though numerous studies have shown that SV40 is capable of causing cancer in humans. The final and most horrific part of the story reports that Lederle Laboratories, the sole oral vaccine supplier in the U.S. from 1977 onward, continued to use monkey kidneys possibly infected by the SV40 virus in its manufacturing process until oral polio vaccine was removed from the market as late as January 2000. This meticulously researched, levelheaded and well-written book should stir up considerable debate. Because the authors never become alarmist, this solid work of investigative reporting carries considerable weight, and deserves to be read by a large audience.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031...ptimalwellnessc

(Note: Ed Haslam lists this book in the bibliography of Dr. Mary's Monkey)

[Jack White]

Jack White said:

This is the first posting in a long while I can agree with. I am suspicious of

ANY VACCINE promoted by the government...particularly the annual FLU

VACCINE DE JOUR.

Have you taken time to consider the curious fact that when Jack Ruby was diagnosed with cancer he said that he thought he had been injected with cancer cells?

I believe Ruby was correct.

Jack

[Jack White]

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Anonymous for obvious reasons? What are those obvious reasons? The messages are varying,

but this one is typical? Is this really how the author shows pity? What does this "EXCERPT" have

to do with the topic of this thread? Since this email was unsolicited, why did Jack White feel it was

necessary to post this particular excerpt?

When immense egos clash, the results are often ugly.

Individuals on both sides of this argument have shown very poor judgment and continue to do so.

[Pamela Brown]

Jack White said:

This is the first posting in a long while I can agree with. I am suspicious of

ANY VACCINE promoted by the government...particularly the annual FLU

VACCINE DE JOUR.

Have you taken time to consider the curious fact that when Jack Ruby was diagnosed with cancer he said that he thought he had been injected with cancer cells?

I believe Ruby was correct.

Jack

And what do you consider the source of that idea of Ruby's?

[Jack White]

Jack White said:

This is the first posting in a long while I can agree with. I am suspicious of

ANY VACCINE promoted by the government...particularly the annual FLU

VACCINE DE JOUR.

Have you taken time to consider the curious fact that when Jack Ruby was diagnosed with cancer he said that he thought he had been injected with cancer cells?

I believe Ruby was correct.

Jack

And what do you consider the source of that idea of Ruby's?

I hope you are not going to say that Judyth told him.

Jack

[Jack White]

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Anonymous for obvious reasons? What are those obvious reasons? The messages are varying,

but this one is typical? Is this really how the author shows pity? What does this "EXCERPT" have

to do with the topic of this thread? Since this email was unsolicited, why did Jack White feel it was

necessary to post this particular excerpt?

When immense egos clash, the results are often ugly.

Individuals on both sides of this argument have shown very poor judgment and continue to do so.

The obvious reason the email was anonymous was that it was unflattering to JVB and the author

did not want it attributed. The email was in response to an earlier posting of mine yesterday.

That the author agreed with my posting was the reason I posted the excerpt. I hope you are not referring

to me a having an "immense ego"...just the opposite is true. I have NO side in this argument.

I am only on the side of truth. I agree that very poor judgment has been shown by resurrecting

the JVB story for yet another repetitive go-round of argumentation.

Jack

[howpl]

Jack,

Did I read you right? Judyth concocted her story out of sexual frustration?!!!!

This is what you've come up with after having Judyth, Jim, et al. box you into a corner post after post for weeks now? Hey, if everyone who is sexually frustrated did as you claim Judyth has done, then every reputed villain in living history would have a veritable harum of groupies. I would call this claim dime-store psychology, but it's hardly worth a plug nickel.

It is, indeed, a spurious and downright shameful evasion of substantive issues and evidence, bordering, if not crossing the border, into character assassination. And then you deliver the coup d'grace: all those cards and letters coming in opining, of course, that Judyth's story is balderdash. Waving your e-mails in the air (sans the names of senders and recountings of their arguments) is too uncomfortably close to McCarthyism not to point out the resemblance. How about letting Judyth and those who have vetted her deeply and extensively know the names of those who would accuse us of being shoddy researchers or, worse, con artists.

After watching this flogging go on for 10 years, on the basis of analyses about as trenchant as what has appeared in this forum, I thought I had seen every conceivable intellectual contortion. (I guess sexual frustration falls into the inconceivable category.) I pretty much know what school of criticism all these scholars adhere to -- the school that teaches how to weave predetermined conclusions out of endlessly told lies, misinterpretations, half-truths, micro-nitpicking, willful ignorance, glib put-downs, hearsay, and just plain nastiness.

I have seen bits and pieces of the recent postings on Judyth on this forum, trying to decide whether I want to reenter the fray -- and ensure that the next 10 years age me 20 years, as the past 10 years have. I wore myself out as one researcher after the another, with some notable exceptions (Jim Fetzer is the latest), battered Judyth (and Martin Shackleford and me) with evasions and even silence (a notable example is John Simkin) when I wrote personally to each of them, mosttimes more than once, pleading for a give-and-take. My phone number has always been listed. Judyth's door has always been open (before she went into exile). Yet no critic EVER wrote or called. The list of names of those willing hide behind their computers and draw conclusions based on gut feeling or, worse, the conclusions of others who haven't themselves done the requisite research is long and depressing. To which I now have to add Jack White. You are not being fair to Judyth.

I apologize for the anger in my tone. But I assure you, it is earned and justified.

Howard

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

Jack White said:

The obvious reason the email was anonymous was that it was unflattering to JVB and the author

did not want it attributed.

One might thing those factors would have given you a clue that to post somebody else's novella idea about Judyth here would only add fuel to the fire.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by

lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited

themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack

has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to

do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such

disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.

Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

We are no longer friends

I hope your happy Judyth, look what your fake tales have done

You are making a huge mistake Jim, I cant believe you are saying this to Jack over a woman who has you under her spell

Everything she has told you is a lie Jim

Jack I am behind you, Jim is wrong for doing this and Judyth has now become my most hated person involved (I dont even want to call her involved) in the JFK assassination

Dean