In July, 2002, I wrote several postings about health care in Canadian jails in general and the denial of health care to me in particular. One JR, hiding behind fictitious e-mail address firstname.lastname@example.org has spent awful lot of time responding to them. When JR was asked why is he hiding his identity, his response was that he did not want to give me, convicted murderer, information about himself. When I pointed out to him that the main Concordia crooks are well and alive and so are the yellow journalists who lied about me, he changed his story: now he was concerned about receiving spam. This was also false: when you get a free e-mail, you immediately get spam even before you ever use it. When your e-mail is not free, your ISP provider sells your e-mail address and you get spam.
I got curious: when a person is lying, he must have good reasons to do so. I asked his posting to be mailed to me and had them analyzed. How many of you know what sphygmomanometer is or how to spell it? JR does. More than that: he quotes from the following web sites:
Quite a job, is not it? Even if you are one of the crooked doctors I exposed in my posting, it will still take you quite some time to find all these quotes. It takes even longer when these quotes are used for "spin" rather than for a real argument. One individual reproached to JR his waste of time and JR agreed. Wow! If this was his opinion, then his waste of time looks even more surprising. It would not though look surprising is you presume that JR is a "twin" of the people I had a conflict with, namely, a parasite on the sacred body of Science.
Here is how JR constructed his spin.
I wrote that Quebec doctors refused to do angioplasty saying that it was too dangerous. JR, who knows from the posting that I was finally transferred to B.C. for an angioplasty and that it was done and that it saved my life, nevertheless writes:
> That's because they are right. Sometimes the risk of the procedure
> outweighs any potential benefits.
And a proper quotation from a web site attached. Yes, SOMETIMES this is the case, but should I repeat that in my particular case the facts proved opposite beyond the reasonable doubt?
Then I write that US doctors all recommended angioplasty. JR has the response here as well:
> Did you inform them of your FULL medical history, or did you just
> them the pictures of your angiography only?
JR at his best: half a page of 6 very important additional things to be considered quoted from yet another web site. Well, JR, do you sincerely think that the Director of Harvard Catheterization Lab does not know what information he needs to make his recommendation? For a regular human being, whose recommendation is more valuable, a New York University Professor (I had recommendations form top US specialists) or an ordinary Quebec doctor? I have now an additional proof that Quebec doctors were not unqualified, but rather liars: on July 19, 2002, I had yet another angioplasty performed here in Quebec, so Quebec doctors could do it and it was a rather routine procedure. They just wanted to murder me, it is as simple as that.
> I would bet that the Americans would draw the same conclusions as
> Quebec colleagues with all the facts at hand.
Don't bet, you have already lost: I was brought to B.C., all the additional tests were made. B.C. doctor came to the conclusion that the angioplasty was possible and did it. Any comments9
I wrote that Jailers initially refused to deliver me to B.C. claiming that all medical care I needed was available in Quebec. JR comments:
> I tend to agree. Why should taxpayer pay to fly you to BC when
> treatment choices are available in Quebec?
Concentrate, JR: pills were available in Quebec, angioplasty was not.
Once again: PILLS were available in Quebec, ANGIOPLASTY was NOT.
Last time: PILLS WERE AVAILABLE IN QUEBEC, ANGIOPLASTY WAS NOT. Got it?
Money was never an issue: my relatives and some of my colleagues were prepared to cover all the related expenses.
Then I wrote that I had a Thallium stress test and that it was bad. JR knows what to do: he concluded that a bad test is a contraindication to angioplasty and even refers to yet another web site for details. I have to disappoint you, JR, even crooked Quebec doctor Ayas has written that my life was in danger and that I needed angioplasty urgently. Quebec doctors are never wrong, huh?
I wrote that Ayas wasted several months by writing letters to the Heart Institute and Jewish General hospital. JR disagrees:
> That was being prudent. You have a history of manipulating facts
> suit your own purposes and opinions. ('Why did the towers collapse'
> supports this conclusion.) By writing the letter, your doctor had
> documentation on file that he consulted with his colleagues as well as
> documentation of their opinions. Such things are not Possible with a
> phone call.
Concentrate, JR. Ayas has a patient, whose life is in danger. Even if he needs some papers in his file, he can send a letter by FAX and ask for a next day response by FAX, months and months were wasted deliberately, got it? As far as the towers is concerned, I was more than right: at first I suggested that the building frames were inadequate. Later, we all learned that TOWERS DID NOT HAVE ANY FRAME, this why they collapsed as a house of cards. It was the criminal design that killed thousands of people, not the terrorists. Remember, 53 years ago, a B-52 bomber has smashed into Empire State building, there was a fire, but nothing had collapsed, because the building had a frame, and a good one.
I wrote that Montreal Heart Institute lied when they responded that nothing they could do. JR:
> Nope, it was the truth.
And great medical specialist JR refers once again to his web links. He does not though quote anything, because there is nothing to quote. Well, great doctor JR, concentrate, I had finally angioplasty done, and recently here in Quebec. Try again: did Montreal Heart Institute lie?
Here is what JR wrote in response to my comment that Ayas was wasting time:
>So? Sounds like he was busy trying to find you an alternative
> not kill you.
Wrong again, he was asking whether they could perform angioplasty in Montreal. Remember, the same ANGIOPLASTY, which was declared too dangerous. The 2 alternatives were: to do angioplasty in Montreal or to do it in B.C. Now, JR, how is one alternative safer than the other?
I wrote that jail doctor McFadden has broken Hippocratic Oath which requires of doctor to do his best in saving human life. JR objects:
> Wrong. One of the core principles of the Hippocratic oath is
to do no
> harm. "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked".
And JR refers to the web site where the oath is posted. Sure, there is such phrase in the oath, but this is the part of the oath of what NOT TO DO. There is also a part of the oath where a doctor swears of what he SHOULD do. Read it, JR.
Then I write that I was finally transferred to B.C. and the angioplasty was done. JR comments:
> So despite the risks, you insisted on having this done. You
Again, concentrate, JR: it was not I, but QUEBEC DOCTOR (Quebec doctors are never wrong) Ayas, who said that my life was in danger; it was QUEBEC DOCTOR Ayas, who recommended angioplasty to be done, got it? The angiography showed that my life was hanging on 10% of just one artery. Now, who is dumb, JR?
B.C. doctor managed to open just one artery, because 3 other were blocked 100% and he told me that had I been brought 4 years ago, he would be able to open all. JR disagrees:
> That is one Doctor's opinion. Just because he is telling you
> want to hear does not make it the truth. ... Besides, nowhere do you
> mention the YOU showed this BC doctor your 1998 angiogram pictures. Had
> he seen them, he may have drawn a different conclusion. No, it sounds
> like he was just trying to tell you something that you wanted to hear
False again, I did write that I found this doctor by sending him my 1998 angiogram. This was done in 1998. Concentrate, JR, how would the B.C. doctor be able to tell me anything had he not seen my 1998 angiogram? Think well, why would any doctor try to please a convicted murderer by telling him what the murderer wanted to hear, especially taking into consideration that the medical Code of deontology explicitly forbids one doctor to undermine the authority of the other, unless it is absolutely necessary?
I wrote that in July I felt my arteries re-closing again, but jail doctor instead of sending me to a hospital was telling me yet again that all I needed was pills. JR:
> And how exactly do you know that the opened artery is closing?
> do some sort of self test?
And JR writes a long paragraph on how good various pills are; he mentions beta-blockers, channel blockers, etc. Yes, JR, there is a very simple and 100% reliable self-test: when you feel chest pain while not moving - you are in trouble. I was right yet again: the July angiography showed 85% closing of the artery. As far as pills is concerned, you did not notice one little thing, JR, namely, that none of the pills claims to eliminate blockage; maximum what pills can do, is to slow down or to stop the growth of the blockage. If your artery is already 85% blocked, you have to re-open it and no pill can do that - you need and angioplasty or bypass surgery, otherwise you can die any moment.
The jail nurses lie when they take my blood pressure, making it lower than it really is. JR does not believe:
> What evidence do you have that they are lying?
Your mail order
> sphygmomanometer and your amateur medical opinion? Or should we believe
> someone who has medical training, unlike yourself?
Yes, I do have a "mail order sphygmomanometer", and it is the same apparatus that nurses are using in jail. One does not need any "medical training" to take blood pressure: when you hear the pulse start - this is the high number, and when you stop hearing your pulse beat - this is the lower number. I can tell my blood pressure even when a nurse is taking it because I hear when my pulse in the arm starts and when it is no longer audible. I am sure, other people subjected to this procedure many times can tell their blood pressure.
Here is what JR responded to my claim that jailers are "cooking books" writing there incorrect medical information:
> Have you seen your medical file? Is this what is written?
No, I find
> it hard to believe. Your case is notorious enough that if you did
> indeed die, some investigative journalist would have a field day with
> anyone who 'cooked the books' against you. No, it Is easier to believe
> that those persons are recording the information accurately to protect
Yes, I did see my file, and yes they are cooking books, and they are doing it to protect themselves. Indeed, last time jail doctor refused to call an ambulance when he sent me to the hospital, though I had chest pain and blood pressure 180/120. He wrote that I had no chest pain and blood pressure 170/95 (lower number is more important to falsify). He did it to protect himself, because if I died in jail car and he wrote the truth, he would have to explain why he did not call an ambulance, but without chest pain and not so high blood pressure he can justify himself, got it JR?
Jailers certainly need not to worry about an investigative reporter for at least 20 more years. The last investigative report about me lied that I was a violent crook, who never had a Ph.D. and knew nothing about Mechanical Engineering. Yellow media still insists that shooting at Concordia took place because of stolen articles. May be, 20 years after my death someone will have the courage to tell the truth, but not before.
This is what JR wrote in response to my statement that one day jailers will succeed in killing me:
> No, if you die because of your condition it will be because of your
> doing. You are self-centered, you are full of egotistical pride, and
> you can not recognize that there may be someone who is indeed smarter
> that you. Face it Fabrikant, you are going to have to learn to control
> your emotions and learn a little humility. Maybe then the prison
> medical staff as well as the population in general will take you a bit
> more seriously rather than for the sorry excuse of a human that you are
> showing yourself to be.
Wow, JR, you wrote many pages of comments trying to convince me that I am getting the best medical care imaginable, and at the end you blurted out that if I improve my behavior and stop being a "sorry excuse of a human", I would not just get better medical care but even might save my life! How can you improve on the best medical care I already get?
Now, who is JR? He lied about the reason of keeping his anonymity and his writings reveal an extreme personal hatred; whatever I write, I am always wrong, even when I am right, I am still wrong to be right. He seems to live in Calgary and one name comes to my mind - Glockner. He was a department chair at the University of Calgary. He was totally incapable of doing any scientific research and he used to do the same as Sankar and Swamy did at Concordia: to hire smart people from poor countries at the taxpayer expense to write scientific articles in which he included himself as an author, without understanding a single word in them.
He was coming to numerous scientific conferences presenting those articles as his own. One time I have asked him several innocent questions about "his" article, which the real author would know, but he could not answer. Every participant at the conference understood that he was an impostor. He is a parasite and I represent a threat to his way of life, this is why he and other parasites hate me so much.
If one reads attentively his last tirade, it seems quite strange that JR is so concerned about establishing that there are people smarter that I. It does not though look strange, if you attach to JR his real name -Glockner.
Taking into consideration, that Glockner has always hired someone to do his job, I would not be surprised if he did it this time too.
Idiots in animal rescue
This show is presented on Discovery channel as an example of noble humans doing their best to save animals. Here is one scene. We see a mother-bear on the pole and we are told that she went there to search for her cubs and got stuck there. I assure you that mother-bear is not so stupid as to climb up the pole to look for her cubs since from the ground she could see that there were no cubs up there. Second, bear can never “get stuck" on a pole: she could descend exactly the same way she climbed it. She climbed the pole because she got scared of people and there was no other place for her to go.
A normal person in this situation would just go away and let the bear descend, not these "rescuers": they fired a shot of tranquilizer into her. She got scared even more, climbed higher, touched the wire, got electrocuted and fell down. Even if she did not do so, these idiots should have understood that when the tranquilizer takes over, the bear would fall and might get killed as a result. In this case, the bear survived, but with this kind of rescuers, who needs enemies?
We see the same idiotic actions when "rescuers" were trying to save a polar bear on a rock above deep water. They again shot a tranquilizer, the bear falls into the water, and again just by luck the bear did not drown. The same situation takes place with 2 cubs who climbed up the tree and "got stuck" there. They did not get stuck; they were scared of humans and were trying to save themselves. Idiotic rescuers are climbing up the tree and naturally, the cubs are climbing even higher. The reasonable thing to do here: go away, leave a safe trap, the cubs will enter the trap, and after that you can transport them into the woods.
Was there a massacre in Jenin?
Much was said about what really happened in Jenin. Let us look at the facts. First, when Israel army was there, they did not allow a single reporter to see what they were doing. This is not a good sign: if you are doing nothing wrong, you would not be concerned someone seeing it. Then a UN Commission wanted to visit Jenin for a fact finding mission. At first, Israel agreed and then refused saying that the members of the Committee were biased against Israel. I do not buy it for a second, because just recently this Commission did issue a report, without being in Jenin, and declared that there was no massacre in Jenin. Well, this is what I would call biased, but rather in favor of Israel. If you were not there, do not issue any report, if you want to keep self-respect.
Then we know that while UN Commission was not allowed in, yet another group which called itself independent Human Rights Watch was allowed in. Why it was allowed in has become clear from their report where they also declared that there was no massacre in Jenin, there were, according to them, killing of civilians, use of civilians like human shields and other things which they called war crimes, but THERE WAS NO MASSACRE! OK, it is time to look in the dictionary. Oxford dictionary defines massacre as “murder cruelly or violently a number of persons". There is no specifics as to the number, so to murder cruelly or violently 2 people would be a massacre. Now, shooting 2 people dead - is it cruel and/or violent? I would guess YES. Did Israel army shoot 2 civilians? I guess the answer is many times yes. Human Rights Watch is playing games with words, knowing full well, what kind of stigma is attached to the word "massacre". Israel can do many things wrong, but it can not possibly "massacre" people, or can it?
The whole thing reminds me of a classic anecdote from many centuries ago. It goes like this. Once upon a time, there was a Lord living in his castle with his servants. One day, he noticed that some of his jewels were missing and there was no doubt that one of the servants did steal them, but which one? One day, the Lord called his servants and told them that he found a special cock, who knows who the thief is. He placed the cook in a dark room with 2 entries. All servants must enter one by one the dark room through one door, place their hands on the cook and then exit. When the thief places his hands on the cock, the cook would start singing.
All servants agreed, each entered the room and exited and cook kept
silent. When the procedure was finished, the Lord asked his servants
to show their hands. All but one had their hands smeared with paint:
the cock was a special one. The servant with clean hands decided
not to touch the cock. Is it clear, who was the thief? Israel
did not allow the Commission in; does this answer well the question whether
there was a massacre in Jenin?
Was Boucher really attacked?
Media has reported that inmate Huska of B.C. has tried to stab Boucher in common room of the Special Handling Unit (SHU). Boucher was only slightly injured, while Huska was stabbed 21 times by 5 other inmates who rushed to Boucher's aid.
I know jail well enough to tell you that it is all nonsense. First, nobody in his right mind would dare to attack Boucher; he is too big a guy and obviously other inmates would kill the attacker. Second, common room is under observation of a guard sitting in a bullet-proof "bubble" at the distance of about 5 m., in addition, everything in common room is being filmed by a security camera. If one really decides to attack Boucher, he will do it early in the morning when the cell doormat open and Boucher and others might be yet asleep. This is how an attack usually takes place.
What really has happened, Huska was attacked by 5 people who stabbed him and the story of him attacking Boucher is invented to create the myth of “self-defense". Prisoners usually do not take shanks with them. If they had shanks with them, it means that attack was pre-arranged. The fact that the attack took place in common room means that either the guards ordered the attack or at least they agreed to close their eyes and cameras on the attack.
This is supported by media statement that the stabbing inquiry is on hold until investigators can speak to the "attacker" Huska. This is nonsense: they can speak to the guard on duty and they can view the tape from the security camera. Huska will tell them nothing, because according to jail code, he will be a "rat" and then his life will be in a real danger.
It is funny to see the balancing act by the President of Prisoners'
Rights Committee Bernheim. He is pronouncing general phrases critical of
Correctional Service, but nothing specific. He knows very well what
I described above, but he would never say it, because he is being funded
by the government in general and Correctional Service in particular.
Saddam and Bush
There is a lot of talk lately about Saddam and whether US should attack Iraq. I already made several postings on the relationship between US and Saddam. This relationship reminds me the spectacle played by a jail informant and a jailer: jailer repeats all the time that the informant is a very dangerous criminal, and the informant in public repeats how he hates the jailer. In reality, the informant does whatever dirty work the jailer needs: to beat up another prisoner, which gives trouble to jailers, to start a riot when jailers are negotiating a new contract with administration, you name it. What amazes me, in many cases the informant gets actually beaten up by jailers, but he continues to serve them.
Now look at Saddam. He started a war with Iran soon after Iran took US diplomats hostages. There was no reason or justification for that war. He did it just to please US. Then in 1990, he attacked Kuwait, again, only, -US benefited from this attack. The whole episode again reminds me of criminal word: when a criminal wants to get a favor from somebody, he arranges an attack on that individual and come to rescue in a critical moment. Just look at the facts. Saddam could attack Saudi Arabia when US forces arrived there and inflict a lot of damage. Instead, he waited until he was attacked, and then his army just retreated, practically without firing a single shot at US. Majority of US casualties were from "friendly" fire.
US encouraged a rebellion against Saddam, and then pulled back deliberately letting Saddam to crash the rebels. After the war, US got what it really wanted: to keep its armed forces in Saudi Arabia under pretext of protection of Saudis, while in reality protecting its own interests. US repeated the spectacle later: claiming their goal to be overthrow of Saddam, they attracted Saddam's enemies in the North of the country and then yet again allowed Saddam to kill them all, while bombing Saddam in the South - quite a spectacle.
My impression that the same spectacle is being played now: US wants
to collect as many Saddam's enemies as Possible, and then to let Saddam
kill them as they did in the past. If this is s0, then the "discord"
between Cheney and Powell becomes easily explicable: Bush needs "reasons"
why NOT to attack Iraq, while continuing his rhetoric. I do not believe
for a second that Bush does not approve in advance whatever each of them
says in their speeches and interviews. Future will show if I am right.
1. A medical doctor was arrested in Florida. He planned to blow up some Muslims. Moussaoui was accused of planning to kill non-Muslims and is facing death penalty. Would this Florida doctor face death penalty?
2. Each time a politician gets out of politics, he gives a nice reason: he wants to spend time with his wife and children. Funny thing though, the politician immediately finds a lucrative job in a private business. Now, why working full time in a private company lets a politician have enough time with his wife and kids and being a politician does not?
As far as I know, members of Parliament leave Ottawa every Wednesday evening or Thursday morning and do not come back until Monday next week. Certainly, you can not do that working for a private company, can you? In addition, they have almost 4 months vacations every year.
What is interesting, no reporter ever dared to ask a politician, why working for a private company lets him spend time with his family while being a politician does not.
3. ABC has made a show about wives of September 11 victims, who gave birth to children which would never see their fathers. Indeed, a tragic situation. On the other hand, while 2800 people were killed on September 11, about 16,000 people are being killed every year by drunk drivers, and a number of them leave their pregnant wives who later give birth to children, who would never know their fathers. These mothers would never be hailed by media, they would get no compensation from the government. Are they really that different from the 9/11 victims?
4. It is still a week before the 9/11 anniversary, but there is practically no show which would not mention it. And to add to the situation, a show entitled: do the media spend too much time on 9/11?
5. Here is one interview: a priest is recalling people on ground zero searching for body part of others and he is saying that God surely was there helping them to find those parts. Yellow journalist had no guts to ask the priest a question: should not we demand from God better than that, for example, to keep those bodies alive, and if he could not do that, at least, to keep them in one piece?
6. It is well accepted that numerous street vendors of 9/11 souvenirs are deplorable. Now, Guiliani is making speeches for $100,000 a speech. Who should be despised more? Is not 9/11 the best thing that could happen to Guiliani? Compare him to the artist, who decided to paint portraits of 9/11 victims free of charge.
7. Back in January 2002, the media reported that about 2000 Muslims
have been detained in US. Now the media say that about 400 have been
deported and only 76 are still being detained. I have a question
(which no yellow journalist dares to ask): what happened to the remaining
1524 prisoners? Were they all killed?
It was reported that one of Karzai bodyguards has open fire trying to kill him. The attacker was killed and one bodyguard was killed too. The impression from the report that the bodyguard was killed by the attacker, but when you see the tape showing what happened, it becomes clear that at least 2 Afghani bodyguards wrestled the attacker to the ground, and then American special forces started shooting at them, and in this unnecessary hail of bullet the Afghani bodyguard was killed. I wonder, next time when someone would start shooting at Karzai, would anyone intervene knowing that Americans would shoot at him and at attacker, they do not give a damn about human life!
What is interesting: Karzai is a President of a country of about 27
million people. Out of these 27 million, he does not seem capable
to find even 100 people who he could trust as bodyguards, so he has to
employ Americans. Does it tell you something?