Update on my "court victory"

As I expected, I would not even get access to the video tape: jailers at Donnacona jail claim that they do not have the tape. They are lying, as usual.

New discovery on Discovery Channel

Discovery channel advertised a show entitled "Kamchatka: Siberia's forbidden wilderness".  Kamchatka has never been a part of Siberia - it belongs to the region called Far East.  Regretfully, some encyclopaedias make the same mistake: they are talking about 3 Siberias: Eastern Siberia, Western Siberia (which is correct) and Far East as part of Siberia (which is wrong).


Idiots in cardiac reasearch

I have just learned from the media that some researchers have managed to show that one month of drinking tea has improved the state of coronary arteries in a control group as compared with the group of people, who did not drink tea.  I have just one question: how on earth did they manage to show this?  They did not give any detail.  I drink tea all my life, I had 2 heart attacks by now, and my heart is continuing to deteriorate, despite tea drinking.  I just wonder, who paid for this research - some tea company?

I have read about numerous "research" results similar to the ones quoted above.  All this is just a waste of time and money.  "Statistical" research never did any good to anyone in any field.  It has been accepted that high cholesterol leads to heart disease.  Well, my cholesterol has always been normal, and I had 2 heart attacks already.  Clearly, there is more to the picture than just cholesterol.  There is a village in Italy, where inhabitants have cholesterol level about 600, which is considered almost deadly for a regular human, and they have no heart disease at all.  This is where research should concentrate, because the genetic makeup of these people has the key to the heart disease eradication.

The way it stands now, researcher do not know even whether high cholesterol is a precursor of heart disease or the organism's defensive reaction to the heart disease.  In any case, researchers are not asking the proper questions.  They presume that high cholesterol leads to lesions of coronary arteries.  The proper question to ask here is: blood circulate all over coronary arteries with the same content of cholesterol, how come, lesion occurs at one place, and not at another.  When and if they answer this question, the real reason for heart disease will be found, but they will not find the answer, unless and until they pose the question.

On cardiac medication

I take each day 4 different medications: Aspirin, Lopressor, Norvask and Apo-hydro.  Do they have any positive effect on me?  I made an experiment: for one month I did not take any of them, and there was absolutely no change in my state, even my blood pressure did not go up.  I suggest this experiment to anyone, who takes heart medication: try not to take it for one month and see whether you would feel yourself any different.  All these medications are nothing but a fraud perpetrated by drug companies, which are not interested to cure heart disease - they want to keep people life-long customers.  This way, they get more money.

Several times I have been brought to the hospital emergency room with heart problems.  Each time, I was offered intravenous injections of various medications.  Each time I refused, because I tried them once, and they just made me more sick, than I was before.  I was usually discharged from hospital for refusal of treatment. A day or two later, my state usually improves by itself.  Had I agreed to these intravenous things, and had my state improved, as it usually does, I would have thought that these injections did help me, which is wrong.  I have noticed that majority of patients never question actions of their treating physician, and many are dead because of this.  I have never refused real treatment: the treatment I need is opening my blocked arteries, which these injections will not do.

Overpass collapse

A year ago, a beam has fallen from an overpass and killed one person in the moving car and injuring two passengers in that car.  Crown has investigated the matter and the conclusion was reported as "the absence of an adequate support brace - not criminal negligence - led to the collapse of an overpass".  My little brain has great difficulty understanding this: does not the fact that someone did not provide an adequate support brace, which led to loss of life, constitute criminal negligence?

When you are building an overpass, there are written rules to follow.  One of these rules requires a support brace, so that a beam would not fall down.  If you failed to provide this brace and someone got killed, how do you call this?  Do you believe that a Crown prosecutor is really so stupid?  He is just bribed, as are the bureaucrats at the Ministry of Transport.

Crown suggested the need for a Coroner's inquiry.  Crown claims that there is a need for Coroner's recommendations how to avoid this to happen again.  This is yet another waste of public money.  I can give you a recommendation free of charge: make an adequate brace support.


Global warming

Though quite a lot has been said on the subject of global warming, I believe that the thoughts expressed below were not expressed before.

First, is the global warming the result of human activity?  To the best of my knowledge, there was a period on our planet called glacial, and then all this ice has melted - there was a global warming before, and there were no humans to produce it.  So, if it could happen in the past without human involvement, why can not it happen again?

Second, is the global warming that bad?  Suppose, huge areas of Canada and Siberia thaw and become hospitable to humans.  I think, it is not bad at all, taking into consideration overpopulation of the planet.  Among the bad things I have heard that polar ice would melt and flood whole countries, like The Netherlands.  I suggest the following experiment: take a glass of cold water and throw into it several cubes of ice, so that the ice would float there.  Notice the water level in the glass.  Do you think that the water level will rise when the ice is melted?  I assure you, it will stay unchanged.

Another experiment: fill a glass with water and place it in the freezer.  Mark the water level.  When the water freezes, the ice level will be higher, because water expands as it freezes.  When this ice will melt, the water level will be lower than the ice level.  So, the conclusion is as follows: melting of icebergs would not change water level, and melting of the bodies of water frozen to the bottom will decrease the level.  The Netherlands are in no danger.

Do the scientists, who are trying to scare population with a catastrophic flood, know all the above?  Of course they do.  So, why are they lying to the public?  Because they need money to fund their research, and what is a better way to secure funding than to say that your research would save the whole mankind?

Third, gas emission.  Certainly there are gases, which are harmful to environment, but what surprises me most, that carbon dioxide is mentioned as main pollutant.  Is not carbon what all plants need to build their bodies?  Plant leaves absorb carbon and release oxygen.  The more carbon you have in the air, the more plants you can grow.  Take advantage of this.  


Stem cell research

Opponents of research funding claim that it is immoral to destroy human embryos for the purpose of medical research.  Their reason: a human embryo has a potential to become a human being.  Let us see whether their argument holds water.

First, for an embryo to become a human being, there should be a womb ready to accept it, without it the embryo will die.  Second, it was shown already by Australian scientists, that one does not need sperm to create an embryo - regular cell stripped of one chromosome would do - the next step is to show that you do not really need a female egg, and I am pretty sure it will be proven soon.  So, any cell is potentially a human being, and you can not touch any cell, even your spit.  We are coming to an absurd.

Next, consider a grown-up human being.  This human is considered dead, when he is brain-dead, it is legal then to disconnect the ventilator and let this human to die completely, it is legal to take organs for transplantation, and it is legal to do any research if necessary.  Now, the embryo is brain-dead, because it does not have any brain, so there is no reason for it to be treated in any different way than the way a grown-up human being is being treated.

Idiots in legislature - offences tending to corrupt moral

Section 163 of Criminal Code makes writing, publishing and distributing of an obscene material a crime.  Now, what is obscene material?  Here are some examples.

If you advertise or sell something which creates abortion or miscarriage - this is a crime.  So, it is a crime to sell famous French pill.  If you advertise or sell something which "restores sexual virility" or cures venereal disease - this is a crime.  Clearly, advertisement of Viagra was a crime.  There is though Sec. 163(3), which allows all the above if "public good was served" and if the perpetrator did not go beyond what served public good.

Why was the law written this way?  The purpose of the trick is very clear: to shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant.  For example, the prosecution only has to prove that the defendant advertised Viagra.  After that, it is the defendant, who has to prove that public good was served and that he did not go beyond what served public good.

Sec. 163(4) says that "it is a question of law whether an act served the public good ... but it is a question of fact whether the acts did or did not extend beyond what served the public good".  And here is the translation for a normal person: it is the corrupt judge who decides whether your actions served public good, not the jury.  Only when and if the judge decides that your actions did serve public good, it is up to the jury to decide whether you went beyond what served public good.  Clearly, the legislators did not trust your peers to decide what is good for them and what is not.

Additional difficulties are created by Sec. 163(5) which says that "the motives of accused are irrelevant".  So, it is irrelevant that you wanted to do good: if a judge decides that you did not, you are a criminal.  In any other crime, the criminal intent is a necessary part for the prosecution to prove.  Yet another idiotism is in Sec. 163(6).  It says that the fact that you did not know that your material was obscene, is not a defence.

Sec. 163(l)(b) makes it a crime writing or publishing a crime comic.  The definition of a crime comic is given in Sec. 163(7).  It is "a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively and substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially ... a commission of crimes, real or fictitious ..." Clearly, a detailed description of Holocaust fits this definition.

Of course, you may say that nobody was prosecuted for Viagra advertisement or for "Schindler's list".  All I am trying to demonstrate here: it is time to overhaul the Criminal Code and to bring it into the twenty-first century.  It is time to tell the government to get out of moral issues - they are not subject of criminal prosecution.  If someone feels offended, this is what civil litigation is for.

About human cloning

Minister of Health Rock proudly announced that Canada will forbid human cloning.  It has been accepted by many that human cloning is immoral, and I did not see anyone arguing opposite.  Why is it immoral?  The nature does do cloning all the time: identical twins are nothing but clones.  If it is OK for nature, why can not we do the same?  What is wrong in having several Mozarts or Einsteins?

Some people say that cloning might lead to deformed and sick children. Sure, nobody wants that, but how this situation is different from the cases of prematurely born babies, which are kept alive artificially, knowing full well that they will end up very sick and deformed?  How is this different from the case where the parents are told in advance that their embryo is sick, and they refuse to terminate pregnancy?

My opinion is that not only cloning should be permitted, but it should also be combined with genetic baby engineering in order to create a baby according to parents' specifications.  And here we come to another prohibited domain: baby engineering - NO-NO!  Now why NO?  Let us start with one thing - sex selection.  Some people argue that to allow parents to select the sex of their children would lead in some nations to male only children.  These nations have very low regard for females, and some women are even killed for their inability to "produce" a son.

In these nations, it is impossible to explain that if someone has to be killed, it is the husband, because he is the carrier of male chromosomes, not his wife.  The only way to deal with this is to allow these nations to choose the sex of their baby.  Two good things will come out of this: first, no woman will be killed or beaten for her "failure" to produce a son; second, these nations will realise very quickly, how much they do need women, and their attitude will change automatically.  Lack of supply always results in a dramatic increase in value.

Cotler, China and Human Rights

Cotler is a former Professor of Law at McGill University, presently Member of Parliament.  He claims to be an internationally renowned fighter for human rights.  Recently, he was reported to have issued and appeal to the members of the IOC not to award the Olympic Games to China because of China's violation of human rights.

Officially, I am a member of his constituency, so I wrote to him a letter, describing to him, how I was being denied medical care, which is one of the main human rights.  I suggested in this letter that prior to fighting for human rights outside Canada, he should start with placing his own house in order.  About a year after the first letter, and after numerous telephone calls to his office, he finally wrote a letter to me.  I reproduce below some quotes from his letter, with my comments.

MP Cotler claims that my rights were respected and he continues: "... we have been advised that you are seen regularly by the institutional physician; that you have had an opportunity to consult with, and be examined by, several private doctors in Quebec; that these doctors share the view of the CSC's physician that an angioplasty will not assist at this time, and that even were there to be an angioplasty procedure, the recommended quadruple by-pass would still have to be performed".

And here is the truth.  Indeed, majority of Quebec cardiologists recommended by­pass surgery.  The problem though was that these cardiologists were not cardiac surgeons, and they did not do by-pass surgeries.  I consulted 2 cardiac surgeons, and both did NOT recommend by-pass surgery, saying that 2 out 4 coronary arteries were non-operable.  The funny part though was that they did not agree as to which two arteries were non-operable: those which one surgeon listed as operable, were listed by the other as non-operable, and vice-versa.  So much for the qualifications of Quebec doctors.

MP Cotler also knew that I had received opinions of the top specialists from Harvard Medical School, Columbia University and New York University, all recommending and ready to perform angioplasty.  He does not mention this in his letter.

MP Cotler continues: "Indeed, I understand that you presently have an application before the Supreme Court of Canada appealing the judgement of the Quebec Court of Appeal of June 16th 2000, which upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of February 29th 2000, which had followed an earlier judgement of the Federal Court on September 14th 1999 denying your request".

How on earth does he know all this?  The matter before the Supreme Court has not yet officially been accepted.  Had he spent one fifth of the time, spent on digging out legal proceedings, on matters of real concern, I would have received by now the health care I need.

MP Cotler writes: "Given the fact that your case is presently before the courts - that the courts have not been prepared to intervene and grant you the relief you seek - and that the Solicitor General is unable to comment on these matters while they are before the courts, there is not much more that I can do on your behalf."

MP Cotler is a Professor of Law, he knows very well, that my cases were never decided on merit, that the case in Supreme Court is a lawsuit in damages against former jail doctor Corbin, which has nothing to do with my present state, and even if it did, Solicitor General can not comment publicly, but nothing prevents him to review my case privately and to correct the situation.

MP Cotler knows that all people now being killed in China were convicted by Chinese courts and killed according to Chinese law, which allows death penalty.  All this did not prevent him to issue an appeal to IOC.  He writes: "This is Canada, not China".  Indeed, the disrespect for law in Canada is even worse, than it is in China.  There is no death penalty in Canada, and I am being killed illegally.  It is corrupt Canadian judges, who declared me vexatious pleader.  A prisoner in jail asks the court to order jailers to provide him a medical treatment recommended by top world specialists.  Instead of doing so, corrupt Canadian judges declare this prisoner a vexatious pleader.  Can any judge go lower than that?


Big lies and statistics

Mark Twain once said that there are 3 kinds of lie: ordinary lie, a big lie and statistics.  Of course, statistics itself is not to blame, it is the way some humans are using it is reprehensible.  Here is an example.  It was reported recently that medical researchers have discovered that smokers have 4 times greater risk to get a pancreatic cancer than non-smokers.  Let us get real numbers.  I do not know exact statistics, but it would be safe to presume that pancreatic cancer affects one out of 1000 population.  So, if you are a smoker, your chance to get this cancer is 4 out of 1000.  Would you stop smoking knowing these numbers?

It is astounding, how much of time and money is spent on this junk research.  Is not it obvious that smoking generally weakens human organism, so it is equally obvious that smokers would get more of any disease.  What really needs to be investigated, for example, is the following: how some people (like George Burns) smoke all their life, keep perfect health and live until almost 100 years old.


My friend takes over the posting job

From now on, my son will no longer be involved with posting of any material written by me on the Internet.  My friend in the US will take over and do the postings using a fictitious E-mail address [email protected] The real identity of my friend will not be revealed.  I did this for one reason: to make it clear to every idiot, who thinks that he can shut me up, the futility of his efforts.  Even if you find out, who this friend in US is and make a corrupt American judge issue an order to stop, I shall find a friend in another country, ready to do all my postings.  I have enough friends for the next 150 years, so do not waste your time.



Hypocrite Bayomi

I have initially posted the following quotation from an E-mail, without revealing the name of the author.  The man was scared.  He wrote:

"I know that your E-mail will be checked at some point and I do not wish to be on the police files ..."

"... if I am to post at all in your threads, I must show some distance from you and I can not appear to be on friendly terms".

"Again, I am very nervous to receive E-mail from you as you would understand, I do not wish to be on police files or other files because of it.  So, please, do not E-mail me very often".

I assured him that I was not going to E-mail to him at all.  I hoped the man would show some decency in his behaviour.  I was wrong.  I am a lifer; the man is a low-lifer.  His real name is Bayomi, and he posts under a false name of Taylor.  Compare the quotes above with his latest postings, and you will understand what I mean.  I just wonder, how many more "bayomis" are there, who write hostile postings, while thinking something else?


Idiots in US legislature

US legislators have voted overwhelmingly to forbid human cloning.  This reminded me of a tragic and stupid page of Soviet history: Stalin has ordered that all genetic research be forbidden, because he considered it immoral.  Because of this stupidity, Soviet biological sciences were left behind the rest of the world for decades.  It might be even more tragic for US, because the US potential in scientific research so much higher of that of the USSR.

Some people call human cloning "Frankenstein science".  It seems to me that these individuals do not really understand what the procedure means.  Under influence of some movies, they think that human cloning somehow allows to take some cells from one individual and to create another grown-up individual, which would be a "carbon copy" of the original.  This is just not so.

There is very little difference between in vitro fertilization and cloning.  In the case of in vitro fertilization, we take a female egg, fertilise it with a male sperm, creating an embryo, which at a later stage is implanted into a female womb and is carried there until birth of a child.  The human cloning is essentially the same procedure, except that instead of an egg and sperm, we have to figure out, how to make an ordinary cell into an embryo, which still has to be implanted into a womb and carried there until the child is born.  This child will be genetically like your twin brother, except that it will be, say, 40 years younger than you.  If in vitro fertilization is OK, what is wrong with the same procedure, where instead of an egg and sperm, an ordinary cell is involved?

There are 2 kinds of cloning: cloning of a complete human for reproductive purposes, and cloning of human organs for therapeutic purposes.  Majority of people understand cloning as reproductive, while cloning of various organs is much more important to save lives.  If you need a new heart, liver or kidney, this organ should be your genetic match, so it should be your clone.

Here is a remedy: Americans should adopt a new Amendment to their Constitution.  This Amendment should say, that the House and Senate should not make any law limiting the freedom of scientific research: ignorant people should not tell scientists what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do.  There exists a Criminal Code, and as long as a scientist does not breach this Code, he should be free to do whatever he feels necessary.

It is sad that Canada is moving in the same direction as US.  On the bright side though, England so far considers both stem cell research and human cloning legal.  If they continue on this path, both US and Canada will be left behind exactly the same way as USSR due to the prohibition of genetics research.



Fabrikant is raving on the internet

There were several cases lately, when all the media simultaneously was talking about Fabrikant.  Each was prompted by seemingly minute events: Fabrikant has made a complaint against a jail nurse, Fabrikant got a favourable judgement.  I have already commented on these media escapades.  On July 27, 2001, all the media was talking about Fabrikant again.  What happened now?  Fabrikant is raving on the internet.  The word "raving" means insane, delirious talk.  Just imagine, a lousy convicted murderer is posting insane messages on the Internet.  Is this really so newsworthy, that it was reported by all major newspapers (Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star, Le Devoir, etc.), English and French radio and TV stations?

Now, what is the probability that that all these seemingly independent media outlets, just by mere coincidence, would tell the same story on the same date?  The probability is close to zero, especially taking into consideration that the postings go back several years, and no "special" posting was made immediately prior to July 27.  Obviously, someone from well above, ordered the media to report the same story, and they did.  You may say, that in Canada, it can not happen, because we have free and independent media.  Well, it DID happen, and it did happen at least 3 times lately, so decide by yourself, just how free and how independent Canadian media really is.

The next question is: why such a media barrage and why now?  Government is desperate to silence me.  They are denying me medical care, hoping that I would die soon, for over 3 years by now, but I am still alive.  In the meantime, my postings seem to get quite popular: some people even tried to fake them, and this is the best proof of it.  Nobody would spend his time faking the posting of a raving lunatic.  My web site was active for several days only, and over 400 clicks were registered.

Government hoped that in response to media propaganda Canadians would raise and demand that Fabrikant be silenced.  This did not happen.  Majority said quite reasonable things: if you do not like the postings, do not read them - it is as simple as that.  What government really achieved with its propaganda machine, many people, who had no idea about my existence, now know, and some are interested to read my "ravings".