Terry Mauro Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 (edited) Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine. Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol there on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remembered what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, it most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out. In the field of science, most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary details of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA and tagging it to a therapeutic dose designed to interact with the DNA of the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. It was an attempt to target the most destructive of the malignant cells by actively transporting the antibodies directly into the DNA of the cancerous cells, without involving healthy cells in the process. Thus, attempting to avoid the damaging effects other therapies, such as chemotherapy and cobalt irradiated treatments, had on all cells surrounding the metastatic ones. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! Edited January 14, 2007 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine.Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol here on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remember what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, and most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out, in the field of science most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary facts of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA to deliver a therapeutic dose to the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 (edited) Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine.Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol here on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remember what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, and most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out, in the field of science most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary facts of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA to deliver a therapeutic dose to the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David *********************************************************** But, isn't that the place they call, "The Jungle"? Couldn't you post it for me, pleeease, David? You could say that I asked you to put it up for me. If you will put it up for me, please use the recently edited version I just put up, explaining the monoclonal antibody process. You could copy the recent edited post and paste it over there, if you would be so kind? I'm scared to go there. Please? Edited January 14, 2007 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine.Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol here on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remember what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, and most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out, in the field of science most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary facts of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA to deliver a therapeutic dose to the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David ************************************************************** Oh well, I guess I'll just have to do it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry J.Dean Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine.Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol here on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remember what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, and most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out, in the field of science most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary facts of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA to deliver a therapeutic dose to the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David Hi charming Lady Please, what is the latest on Judyth and her book? I find your explaination above very important and interesting. I thank you. H.J.Dean ************************************************************** Oh well, I guess I'll just have to do it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 (edited) Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine. Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol there on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remembered what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, it most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out. In the field of science, most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary details of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA and tagging it to a therapeutic dose designed to interact with the DNA of the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. It was an attempt to target the most destructive of the malignant cells by actively transporting the antibodies directly into the DNA of the cancerous cells, without involving healthy cells in the process. Thus, attempting to avoid the damaging effects other therapies, such as chemotherapy and cobalt irradiated treatments, had on all cells surrounding the metastatic ones. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! ************************************************************* Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David Hi charming Lady Please, what is the latest on Judyth and her book? I find your explaination above very important and interesting. I thank you. H.J.Dean ************************************************************** Oh well, I guess I'll just have to do it myself. ************************************************************** Hi Har, Nice to hear from you. From what I gathered, Judyth's computer had been stolen back in The Netherlands, and parts of her book were being trashed about on different forums. Plus, there was some mishap when Livingstone got ahold of it and had it published without her knowing about it, I believe. I don't know what part Shackleford might have had in that mishap, if any. All I know is that it wasn't in the form in which Judyth had wanted her book to come out, and at the time that it did. When Barb alerted me to Shackleford's latest escapade over at McMadman's, I totally lost it. Shackleford should butt out and let Howard Platzman and Judyth do the best with the damage that's already been caused, and let things get straightened out without everybody sticking their fingers into the pie, like a bunch of vultures. That's all I know about it so far. And, I still support Judyth on the monoclonal antibody aspect, it sounded like she was working on back in the early 60's. I've also gotten to know Barb fairly well, via phone conversations. I'd love for her to post over here because she's also a member, but she said she'd forgotten her password. I'm in the process of sending John's e-mail address to her so she can contact him, personally. That's where it all stands today. I've taken the time to delete those parts of the original post I made, and re-inserted the edited post, high-lighting and bolding in blue, the part of it I think you may be referring to, or may be interested in with regard to the monoclonal antibodies. See above. Warmest regards, Ter Edited January 14, 2007 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine. Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol there on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remembered what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, it most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out. In the field of science, most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary details of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA and tagging it to a therapeutic dose designed to interact with the DNA of the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. It was an attempt to target the most destructive of the malignant cells by actively transporting the antibodies directly into the DNA of the cancerous cells, without involving healthy cells in the process. Thus, attempting to avoid the damaging effects other therapies, such as chemotherapy and cobalt irradiated treatments, had on all cells surrounding the metastatic ones. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! Terry You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David ********************************************************** David, I attempted to navigate the site, but wasn't sure how to place the post. I did try, though. Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 Hi Ter: I cannot allow what you have posted to stand without, making a few clarifications... Excuse me"" That's where it all stands today." You seem to be quite confused on all this matter..and not up todate, in any form. Her pc was never stolen...She abandoned it, and would not send her sisters ad to have the drive and a few other things mailed to her....nor to another address...though I am aware of how the story changed..the PC did not have the latest book, on it, it had remnants of past books that she had continually changed and updated.....also according to the laws, as you are aware after a certian amount of time, whatever reverts to the person who retains such..The way they use whatever materials after, is up to them, not to the previous owner..the same with emails, once sent they become public property....the laws are quite clear.. I have no idea from where or from whom you have received your information....but much is in serious error.. Her book which has been released for sale, was critqued like any other conspiracy book has and will be done....by those who bother to buy, read and study such...and follow all..and do the research..pertaining to..hers is and never will be any different that any other....some seem not to be able to comprehend that element, ..and continually make excuses,which are not to be given in the research world, never was and imo never wil be...that is the way it is.. Livingstone, nor Martin had the book, "gotten a hold of" nor was it not printed without her knowledge...she had given the ok, after they, the three, had gone through it all one last time..you perhaps should contact Livingstone and or Martin, and or at least read their and Howards informative posts on the alts....They stood on their heads for herfor years, in otherwards, only to be trashed by her.....but enough is never enough ..for her and never wil be... The book had been turned over to the publisher and printer.....at the last moment she decided she wanted more pages added, I think something like 86, or 186, but there was no more money available to do so, as it would have meant a complete re-doing of said....book..... It was a matter of it being printed then and there or not..the book went ahead....There are only so many changes that can be done..continuallly doing so, meant it would in all probability never be issued....there was only so much money available, and that was completely gone...and no more available. Martin is and has been Judyth's biggest supporter, you should be aware of that fact, he still is....no one has been through the Judyth wars more and longer than Shackelford...nor taken as much in criticism..nor continually has done the damage control.... What damage you refer to I do not know, she wrote a book with their and the many's input, and had it printed and sold...The errors , of which there are many, in such are the authors...that is whom in the end, must take the responsibility for such...she wrote it, she went through it, that final time.....but.....which she will not, never has and never will....any error she makes is , has been and shall always be someone elses.. I would suggest that yourself as welll as any others who have not bothered to purchase the said books, do so, and read and do the research which goes along with such, and try to stay up to the critique of such and check all research out for yourself, as other do and have, they find the time, as we all must.. If you or anyone is interested in what has been stated by these three men you mention above, do so by contacting them, and or at least spend the time to log onto McAdams, and read.....IMO she was is and always will be a complete waste of time....as her book has been proven to be a costly, waste in money,time and effort..... and after all the years I have spent on all, I am surely entitled..to say .. Beans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted January 15, 2007 Author Share Posted January 15, 2007 Hi Ter: I cannot allow what you have posted to stand without, making a few clarifications... Excuse me"" That's where it all stands today." You seem to be quite confused on all this matter..and not up todate, in any form. Her pc was never stolen...She abandoned it, and would not send her sisters ad to have the drive and a few other things mailed to her....nor to another address...though I am aware of how the story changed..the PC did not have the latest book, on it, it had remnants of past books that she had continually changed and updated.....also according to the laws, as you are aware after a certian amount of time, whatever reverts to the person who retains such..The way they use whatever materials after, is up to them, not to the previous owner..the same with emails, once sent they become public property....the laws are quite clear.. I have no idea from where or from whom you have received your information....but much is in serious error.. Her book which has been released for sale, was critqued like any other conspiracy book has and will be done....by those who bother to buy, read and study such...and follow all..and do the research..pertaining to..hers is and never will be any different that any other....some seem not to be able to comprehend that element, ..and continually make excuses,which are not to be given in the research world, never was and imo never wil be...that is the way it is.. Livingstone, nor Martin had the book, "gotten a hold of" nor was it not printed without her knowledge...she had given the ok, after they, the three, had gone through it all one last time..you perhaps should contact Livingstone and or Martin, and or at least read their and Howards informative posts on the alts....They stood on their heads for herfor years, in otherwards, only to be trashed by her.....but enough is never enough ..for her and never wil be... The book had been turned over to the publisher and printer.....at the last moment she decided she wanted more pages added, I think something like 86, or 186, but there was no more money available to do so, as it would have meant a complete re-doing of said....book..... It was a matter of it being printed then and there or not..the book went ahead....There are only so many changes that can be done..continuallly doing so, meant it would in all probability never be issued....there was only so much money available, and that was completely gone...and no more available. Martin is and has been Judyth's biggest supporter, you should be aware of that fact, he still is....no one has been through the Judyth wars more and longer than Shackelford...nor taken as much in criticism..nor continually has done the damage control.... What damage you refer to I do not know, she wrote a book with their and the many's input, and had it printed and sold...The errors , of which there are many, in such are the authors...that is whom in the end, must take the responsibility for such...she wrote it, she went through it, that final time.....but.....which she will not, never has and never will....any error she makes is , has been and shall always be someone elses.. I would suggest that yourself as welll as any others who have not bothered to purchase the said books, do so, and read and do the research which goes along with such, and try to stay up to the critique of such and check all research out for yourself, as other do and have, they find the time, as we all must.. If you or anyone is interested in what has been stated by these three men you mention above, do so by contacting them, and or at least spend the time to log onto McAdams, and read.....IMO she was is and always will be a complete waste of time....as her book has been proven to be a costly, waste in money,time and effort..... and after all the years I have spent on all, I am surely entitled..to say .. Beans... ************************************************************** Thanks for bringing me up to date on this, Bern. I'm only trying to clarify what my position was in the whole matter, and I also sought to update Shackleford on where I stood, as far as what my contribution had actually been, no matter how skewed it may have come across in the book. That's why I was also dismayed that he continued to bring up an already settled situation between Barb and I, that no longer needed to be made reference to, since he was obviously unaware of what had transpired over the last 5 months. I'm also pissed off at the fact that he brought my name up over at a place that I abhor, and do not care to have to be forced to go to and place a reply at. I don't have the time to frequent the alts. If anyone should know that, it's you and Dix. But, I'll stand corrected, again. And, I'll concede to my errors, again. Having said such, I really need to get to the office. I keep in touch with those who keep in touch with me. Barb and I have been sharing information on other subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination. I prefer not to continually kick a dead horse, which is what Shackleford seemed to be doing, especially by drawing my name back into it, at this late date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now