On 3 May 2008 01:50:56 -0400, "Michael O'Dell" <mlo23@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Since Barb didn't point this out, I will.
>
>Barb wrote: "...and amongst the scientific jargon, it notes that..."
>
>To which Howard responded: "------You didn't understand the "scientific
>jargon"? Was it too complicated for you, who have billed yourself in the
>past as a whiz adult on things medical?"
>
>Using the term "scientific jargon" as she did, in no way implies an
>inability to understand the jargon. It only implies the jargon isn't
>relevant to her point, so she didn't bother to go into it.
You got it....as did most, I would expect.
>
>This is a pretty pathetic way to attack someone.
Are we surprised?
Barb :-)
>
>Michael
>
>
>"howardp" <howpl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:d612a175-b2dd-4ebd-b75b-984103f521f3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>After a showy display of her perseverance, Barb finally gets to the
>meat of the matter:
>
>Dear Ms. Junkkarinen:
>I am writing to you to help to answer your query regarding the Fall
>1961 Indiana Academy of Science meeting. Judyth Vary was a co-
>presenter of a program entitled "Studies on the Increase in vitro of
>Mitotic Activity and Melangenesis in the RPMI HA # 5 (7113) Strain
>Melano."
>
>--------The good sister was not a co-presenter. Nuns chaperoned her
>from St. Francis -- a student just two weeks into her undergraduate
>career -- and one nun, M. Claire, introduced her paper at the
>conference. Not a single nun had a part in Judyth's project, which, in
>any case, summarized her work at Roswell. Note the date: October 19.
>It is the same paper she gave at Roswell. Are you saying they
>conducted a project jointly, then wrote a paper about it, then
>submitted the paper, then had it accepted...all in the space of a few
>weeks? Surely you aren't saying this. It was the same paper.
>--------If you are still in doubt, you might want to see if her
>supposed "co-presenter" ever presented or co-presented any paper on
>melanoma, or the disease of your choice, anywhere else in her
>lifetime.
>
>It was presented to the Academy's Committee (also known as a
>"Section") on Bacteriology at the Fall 1961 Meeting. The meeting
>occurred on October 19, 1961 at Indiana State College, Terre Haute,
>Indiana.
>
>------ Judyth turns out to be remarkably good at some details and
>remarkably bad at others. She is awful at identifying faces, much
>better on remembering people's names, much worse on the names of
>groups. She probably mistook "bacteriology" for "biology" in her
>memory. In any case, she was nervous as hell and paid little to no
>attention to where she had been driven. Unfortunately, she did not
>fact-check herself and, for this, Martin and I must share the blame.
>You deserve credit for finding evidence of what she said existed. The
>thing is, Barb, no one intentionally changed names on you. It makes no
>sense for her to do that. Why would she make it harder to confirm the
>truth of what she claims when that claim sup****ts her larger story and
>is in fact true? Trickery only hurts her, as you have shown.
>------ Even if the paper was co-presented, which is not the case, how
>does that hurt her story? Students and professors regularly publish
>papers together in the sciences, as I am sure you know, even when the
>student does most of the work. Do you have a different background? I
>ask because you don't even consider this possibility. If you are aware
>of this practice, then your analysis tells me more about your motives
>than hers.
>
>I have attached a bitmap (bmp) scan showing some more information
>about this presentation.
>I was not able to find an original program for the fall meeting in our
>Archives collection (of course as luck would have it the collection
>skips both 1960 and 1961), but this was published in v. 71 of the
>Proceedings. Citation for the scan: "Studies on the Increase in vitro
>of Mitotic Activity and Melangenesis in the RPMI HA # 5 (7113) Strain
>Melano." Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. V. 71 (1961)
>p. 71. This article appears as an abstract only and is not available
>in full through the Academy's Proceedings.
>
>I hope that this has helped to answer your question about Judyth Vary.
>Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Anika
>[........], Librarian
>Indiana Academy of Science
>Indiana State Library, Catalog Division
>140 N. Senate Ave.
>Indianapolis, IN 46204
>END QUOTE
>
>It's actually a jpg that I received. I will reply to this post and
>attempt to post the jpg. If it does not appear, somebody let me know
>as my newsreader still doesn't show me posts with attachments. What it
>is, is a short synopsis (abstract) of what was presented. It notes
>Judyth Vary co[presented with a Sr. M. Clare Francis (long since
>deceased I learned from a nun at St. Francis) and amongst the
>scientific jargon,
>
>------You didn't understand the "scientific jargon"? Was it too
>complicated for you, who have billed yourself in the past as a whiz
>adult on things medical? It just may be that this jargon you find so
>lost in reflects knowledge you don't have. That kind of disqualifies
>you as someone who can say anything authoritative about the quality or
>level of her work.
>
>------So at the age of 17Judyth could write rings around you on the
>subject of cancer. To me, that is impressive. Welcome to Team Judyth.
>You and I have every hope of getting along as well as Martin and I
>have.
>
>it notes that, "Although results are inconclusive at this date,
>indications suggest that specific...." and at the end it mentions an
>area for "future endeavor."
>
>------This is a silly attempt to make it appear she never actually
>delivered the paper that you have already established she delivered!
>Ever hear of the expression, "can't have your cake and eat it, too"?
>Surely you are aware that scholars routinely suggest that further
>research is needed along the lines pursued in their papers. Only bias
>could skew the natural and innocent meaning of this phrase. The name
>for this tactic is "innuendo" - although a weak example of the art.
>
>Searching for the incorrect name of the organization made this
>impossible to track and verify ... almost. :-)
>
>------Humility has no place here, Barb. Of all people, I didn't think
>I would have to remind you of that.
>
>So here is how it stacks up....
>CONFIRMED:
>
>A paper having to do with melanoma was presented the Fall of 1961.
>
>------It was presented by Judyth Vary and based on her research at
>Roswell in the summer of 1961. There was no co-presenter.
>
>WHAT JUDYTH NEGLECTED TO SAY:
>She was a CO-PRESENTER
>
>------Wrong.
>
>DENIED:
>A bunch of nuns going along to vouch for her....one of those nuns was
>presenting WITH her.
>
>------"Vouch"? She could have used the word. But all they did was
>drive her to the "bacteriology" conference, and one of them introduced
>her.
>
>Presentation at Notre Dame ... it was in Terre Haute at Indiana U and
>this was the regular Fall meeting of the Indiana Academy of Science.
>
>------That's my Judyth.
>------Does this being a "regular meeting" somehow mean something?
>
>First student/only student asked to present a paper ...NO. That is
>what the Academy DOES.
>
>------She was the only one her age to present a paper at that session.
>That was her impression at least. Since they had a Junior Academy,
>too, the barely-out-of-high-school Judyth may well have been the
>youngest person ever to present at the Senior Academy.
>
>And Martin posted it was considered "significant" ... yet it made it
>into the Proceedings as an abstract only, it was not published in the
>Proceedings.
>
>------No reason is given for it not being published in full. Yours is
>a shaky inference at best. There may be any of a number of reasons for
>it. Ochsner/Moore told her she could only go into so much detail in
>writing about her summer work. Perhaps they made sure only the
>abstract remains. Who knows? She was not told.
>
>This is not an "academy" like a school. It is an academy of science
>people ..including some lay people .... many members/officers, like
>the secretary, are professors at local colleges and universities. They
>band together in the interests of science and LOOK for interesting
>projects students, scientists, etc are working on.
>
> ------So she re****ted on an "interesting project." I presume this
>lowly "Academy" thought it an intelligent re****t at the very least, or
>else "the interests of science" would be poorly served by its being
>presented. I am impressed by its title alone and, like you, would
>probably not be able to get past the "jargon." That would seem to
>count in her favor.
>
>------Heavens, you might as well be saying that she presented at an
>Amateur Hour conference to a room packed with gum-chewing
>teenyboppers! You imply that anyone presenting there must be a nobody
>destined to remain a nobody. I think your librarian friend would
>probably take issue with this view. You dig out the stuff well enough,
>but when it comes to analysis, you might as well be standing on your
>head.
>
>I asked that specific question of the Academy librarian, and this is
>the reply:
>
>QUOTE
>
>You're very welcome, Barb!
>
>It was quite normal for students and other "laypeople" of all types to
>become members, attend meetings, and even present and publish in the
>Proceedings. Certainly not always a tenured professor, in other words.
>
>------Where does she say that only tenured professes can present?
>
>In 1961 there was also a Junior Academy of Science which sought
>member****p from Indiana high school students and they had their own
>meetings where even younger scientists could present on their own
>research and writings.
>
>------Dare I say this is irrelevant, except for the inescapable
>conclusion that her project was considered interesting enough to be
>presented at the Senior and not the Junior Academy. Check it out,
>Barb. She had just graduated high school! I recall being a whole lot
>more confident as a junior or senior than in my first weeks as a
>freshman.
>
>Before the meetings there is a call for papers and presentations and
>then the Committees decide which papers will be heard.
>
>------I'm sure "quality of research content" was left off the list of
>criteria used to make such decisions.
>
>Again, hope this helps and please let me know if I can be of further
>assistance.
>~Anika
>END QUOTE
>
>I can hear the, "Big deal, so she just got the name wrong" response
>already. They can save it.
>
>------I'm sure you wish we would. But this is a job for the Logic
>Police. Stick to digging for details, Barb. As an analyst, your agenda
>is showing.
>
>A couple weeks before she gave the paper, re****ting to someone in a
>letter that it was the Indiana Biological Association, is one
>thing .... a bit odd, for a giddy whiz kid ... but then after having
>actually been there...meeting and greeting ... the oldest such
>organization in the state ...didn't she pick up a program? ... that
>really stretches credulity.
>
>------She didn't see a program. Maybe she was otherwise occupied. I
>have a copy of the Roswell Park summer program brochure and the
>Science Fair program, if you're a program buff. I too find it hard to
>believe that there was no program, but, for whatever reason, she did
>not come away with one.
>------Once again, I call upon the Logic Police: this is what is called
>"beside the point." You have already conceded that she appeared as a
>presenter. You don't get to go back and declare it evidence against
>her authenticity that she can't produce a conference brochure when you
>already admit she gave a paper at the conference!!
>------If you knew her, it would not "stretch credulity" that she could
>lose sight of such details. Ever hear of the "absent-minded
>professor"? At 17, she was well on her way. I am sorrier than you are
>that she can turn a corner and get lost. On a more balanced view, it
>should be even more remarkable that she was able to remember one
>percent of the details she has. You're about as fair and balanced as
>Fox News.
>------And in the end, she always seems to get where she is headed,
>sometimes depending on the kindness of friends and strangers who
>escort her and keep her from getting too lost. This jibes completely
>with the Judyth I know.
>
>But she ran with Indiana Biological Association for all these years...
>and what that did was make it almost impossible to fact check
>
>-----If you knew her, you would know that this is who she is. She runs
>with -- or past -- things she considers settled or secondary, whether
>they are or are not settled or secondary. That is one reason I blew up
>over her book. Her headlong approach to life isn’t entirely without
>merit. It also explains how she evolved as a cancer researcher from
>inducing cancer in mice at age 16 in high school, to strengthening
>cancer cells at age 17 at Roswell Park, to tracking cancer cells at
>age 18 in Gainesville, to weaponizing cancer cells at age 19-20 in New
>Orleans.
>------You have taken us to age 17 1/2 -- showing, you maintain, a
>pattern of failure -- and yet, despite her many failures, as
>characterized by you, she is giving technical papers on melanoma that
>you can only describe as jargon?!! I bet some people in the audience
>understood.
>
>and discover that, once again ... just like Roswell Park, the green
>glass,the Russian class (and other things as we shall see), a grain of
>truth has been inflated and embellished beyong recognition ... all,
>seemingly, for the drama, to point out how special and im****tant she
>was ... and to make it a credible (Judyth thinks) stepping stone
>culminating in her ultimate glory in Ferrie's kitchen.
>
>------And yet, despite her repeated failures, she somehow gets closer
>and closer to a time and place at which a secret plot could be hatched
>in which she could, by virtue of her special training, play a major
>role. I seem to recall people saying not long ago that she knew
>nothing about science and may have been, at most, a lab technician.
>The deeper you dig, Barb, the higher the expectation that her
>adventure would stop. But it doesn't. If she got expelled from
>Roswell, as you claim, it sure wasn't for lack of talent. In the fall,
>she was given a 2nd NSF grant and a grant from the American Cancer
>Society. Ochsner was still taking good care of her.
>
>So, now, I guess I best don my helmet and flak jacket ... and prepare
>for more incoming from Martin and Pamela on my distortions, vague and
>cherry picked information, "pseudo" verification, tilting at
>windmills, lack of any real research, etc.
>
>------On the contrary, you have done a fine job. I bet at the start of
>this crusade of yours, that you never expected that she could have
>written, or even co-written, a paper on melanoma at the age of 17.
>Keep going, Barb, but I will say to you what I have said (often in
>vain) to her: watch the speculations and inferences. There is such a
>thing as trying too hard.
>
>Heck, they can't possibly latch onto my confirming Judyth did present
>a paper that Fall ... this do***entation is no different than ones I
>have sought out and presented on other topics
>
>------Watch this space for more on Roswell Park.
>------As for the green glass, she never lived in New Orleans in any
>year other than 1963. Find her there any other year and you win a
>prize. I don't know where or when you think she got her hands on the
>glass, or even found out that Reily gave away such gl*****, but I'm
>sure you will make up something incoherent. For what it's worth, her
>children became aware of it 28 years ago. When do you think she
>started planning this hoax? 1961? 1963? 1980? Nothing beats tying your
>destiny to one of the most hated men in history. With that as a goal,
>you can hardly get too soon a start.
>------I'm glad you're chopping away at the underbrush -- and dig you
>must -- but you seem lost in the trees: there is the forest to be
>considered. You are drawing conclusions that make no sense. That this
>is so is evident from the fact that each time it seems you've caught
>her out, her life takes her to the next step anyway, as if she were
>telling the truth -- and you are forced to trail along! Her sins, as
>you recite them, do not slow her down. They never quite catch up with
>her. They are as if they never occurred. They are as if the product of
>others’ lapses in memory or your own lapses in reasoning. The way she
>keeps on going, the lady must be the Eveready Bunny. Or a magician,
>because she sure has the magic touch. Keep on researching. The way
>things are going for you, pretty soon you will discover that she was
>the first woman president of the United States. (- :
>
>
>.. so how could they! But, of course, if they do (and of course they
>will!) ... they also have to accept the information from the same
>source that relates there was nothing unique about a student
>presenting at one of their meetings. A co-presenter.
>
>No need for a motorcade of nun doctors to vouch for her. And on and
>on. This was easy to find once I had the Indiana Academy of Science.
>Looking for the Indiana Biological Association it wasn't possible to
>find out if a paper was presented at all ... let alone that there was
>a co-presenter, that she wasn't the first/only student to present, and
>on and on.
>
>All these years her sup****ters yukking up the Indiana Biological
>Association and the rest of the tale. Obviously, no one made the least
>little effort to fact check any of it.
>Indiana Biological Association: SOLVED
>Reality not quite matching the story: TYPICAL.
>Maybe I'd better put on my boots too.....
>
>Barb :-)
>
>
|
