Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
RX scan manipulatie as obstruction in a forensic investigation after a clandestine implant in the neck, which has been recognized several times now in its excistance with MRI research. According to one doctor I am working in cooperationn with it is rediculous that third party doctors got involved in the matter by committing scan manipulations, while they could claim their professional right of silence not cooperating in investigation. Now they have become compliss. (Thit is a redirected version in comb ination with part C.)
Citation preview
Siegfried van Hoek
Fraud Research (part B rewritten with additional scans with improved scan results /
techniques with the AGFA Duoscan.).
PART B: FRAUDE RESEARCH Compilation Medical Research Part A Page 2 Research upon Manipulations of Graphical material Page 3 Conclusion (also included in part A) Page 24 Credits and second thoughts (also included in part A) Page 25 Plight Bloody - Plight Messy (also included in part A) Page 26 3 Enclosures (whereof 2 included in part A) Page 27 - 31 The Medical Research and the Fraud Research are made into separate files, for showing the blamable medical deeds separately from criminal acts of concealment resulting into respectively part A and part B.
PART A: A MEDICAL RESEARCH Foreword Page 2 Medical situation of Siegfried van Hoek, narration Page 3 M.R.I. report from Germany with interpretation Page 5 Scan overview 1999-2007 Page 8 Critical analysis of the surgery report October 2000 Page 20 Some scan-extractions from pervious studies Page 24 Conclusion, Credits, Plight Bloody – Plight Messy Page 46 - 48 6 Enclosures (whereof 2 included in part B) Page 49 - 60 This layman study is made with MS Word. For evaluating this work, it is recommended to study it with a computer, so you can use a zoom function. On the printed out version the images shown may be shown in a far less quality.
COMPILATION OF MEDICAL RESEARCH PART A
The MRI research showed out that the vene sinus rectus was violated, and that material was left behind in the head, and that there was unregistered implanted in the neck.
The artefact in the neck contains several (inorganic shape-) parts where under a tie-wrap.
Besides a strap also a ‘bug’ is shown in the neck as shown above. On the scan to the right we see the backside of the neck and just under the skin of the neck up lightning (blood?) spots. In part A was shown that there cannot be an issue of handling by accident, in part B this will be shown further with the amount of fraud for concealment. Manipulation of both the CT made shortly after the 2nd treatment for concealment is with the X-ray fraud investigation proven. Let us begin with the CT scan investigation in order to point this also further out with the procession of the investigation of X-ray fraud.
RESEARCH UPON MANIPULATIONS OF GRAPHICAL MATERIAL After the 1st surgical treatment in February 2000 one CT scan was made to preclude internal bleedings. After the 2nd surgical treatment in principle for the same reason two CT scans were made with one month difference in between with the very first indication on fraud.
On the 1st Ct scan of 15 Feb 00 we can not discover that much. And there is no vein clip to be discovered in the head yet, and there has not been performed illegal / unregistered surgery in the neck yet as well.
In the up following scan series we will see exact the same neck, but with a different position of the skull, I suspect that also here is an issue of manipulation to conceal the surgery done in the neck.
Ingreep
Surgery
During the 2nd operation surgery in the neck took place with attaching a metal object tightened to the C3 vertebral. On this AMC CT scan however this is not visible. But an inorganic object remained back in the head. What are the ‘holes’ in the skull (black arrows)? Note: The neck (-vertebras) look in stretching / twisting identical in position, shape and size, but the skull shows on all CT scans different sinus-bone-lines.
` On the 2nd CT scan date 02 Nov00 the vein-clip appears in the head. It is located on the exact spot where the intervention took place. The clip might be mounted in the scan after making. Anyhow working backwards with the up following MRI-scans it showed out that here was already an issue of image manipulation.
AMC CT 30 Dec 2000 why was a 3rd CT scan needed? Do pay attention to the larger vein clip in the neck, scans do not know perspective. It is impossible that a clip can sink down through the foramen into the neck, the Dia Sana / MRI scans proved that there still remained back an inorganic object in the head.
The CT scan from Dec 2000 has been manipulated, the clip still is in the according to MRI. The CT-scan Nov. 2000 however also has been manipulated too, for an implantation in the neck was done. Suggesting a sacking vein clip was made to explain in concealment the inorganic object to be seen on MRI later on. The CT scans from Nov and Dec 2000 have been manipulated for concealment. The comparison with CT scans was limited and needed further investigation with new additional scans and X-ray to point out more.
In the need of further defining of morphology Prof. Seibel proposed up following that an X-ray investigation (probably) would offer solution. Up following it showed out that as well as by a Dutch clinic as well as by a German Hospital image fraud was committed with X-ray-scan-negatives to conceal the secret implant in the neck, and apparently in addition to the concealments that were already committed by the offenders of the AMC, because the CT scans were suggesting that a vain clip would have sagged down from inside the head towards the inside the back of the neck. Underneath you will find the investigation after these X-ray photos. For orientation I used the upwards sticking projection of the O. Axis (Dens Axis) of the second vertebra C2 and the backwards projection of the first vertebra O. Atlas also being called the Posterior Arch of C1. The intervertebral discs I have used as reference in height of the vertebras and the equal height of the image. November 16th 2007 the first series of X-ray photos were made. That series already showed very evident manipulations.
After investigation the image manipulation at first start I decided to have had made a new series of X-ray photo’s elsewhere via MRI Germany at the St. Marie Hospital (ZHS2) in Mulheim am Rhein. These scans were of a better quality, and in principle they connect with the first series of scans. The one is not disclosing the other, are there two clips in the body then (inside the head and behind in the neck)? At further study the RX scans from the second series appeared to be manipulated as well. By this there also is an issue of deliberate spanning together with in concealing forging clandestine fact of placing an implant (complicity) by committing image-fraud.
The clip is differing in height at the scans of ZHS2 in regard oh the height/size of the vertebras.
But the most evident proof of manipulation remains the pasting over of hospital information forgoing.
C2
C2
C3 C3
C1 ZHS1H ZHS1S ZHS1F ZHS1O
Scan ZHS1H carries a double Posterior Arch. On all the scans the height / size of the little clip is differing.
C2
Discus Intervertebra D. Interv.
D. Interv.
D. Interv.
C2
C3
C3 C3
C2
C2
C3
C3
C2
ZHS1S ZHS2S
ZHS2O
At first a complete overview of all X-ray photographs follows on this page.
ZHS1Frontalis (Foto ZHS1F) ZHS1Oralis (Foto ZHS1O) ZHS1Sagittalis (Foto ZHS1S)
ZHS 1 Hoofd (Foto ZHS1H) ZHS2Oralis (Foto ZHS2O) ZHS2Sagittalis (Foto ZHS2S) First explanatory note on the complete series to be investigated. Above we see all available X-ray-scans, with right under an abridge nomination, which I will use as source reference at the moment I enlarge parts of those scans. In the Dutch clinic 4 scans were made, and in the German hospital 2 scans were made. The four scans show resemblance at first sight (resp. ZHS1O and ZHS1S) with the other two (ZHS2O and ZHS2S). Scan ZHS1F can be compared in analysis with scan ZHS1O and ZHS1H. Scan ZHS1S can be compared with scan ZHS1H and scan ZHS2S. Scan ZHS1H can also be compared with the Ct-scan from Dec 2000 because of being related visually. Elucidation on the rewriting of part B: All the epistles have been checked before presentation. Medical Initiation NL has been added with rest info and Medical research part A has been checked on minor mistakes that remained in it before, remaining from coming forth from the epistles Veneresearch and Appendix. But part B knows several versions of investigations, solely because each time the technique of investigation was possible to improve, by which finally even more aspects of image manipulation became visible. The first version was made with a S-VHS camera whereof the film-images were played on a computer, whereof screen copies were made. The up following series was made with a mobile phone with the scans scotched against a window with the background of a nearly uniform grey sky (we still see fragmentary some branches of trees), and for the last registration even an Agfa Duo scan was used to scan in the X-ray results on 500 dpi (with the details on 1000dpi). Two scans of ZHS1 did not fit completely under the scans, so a Kodak camera on a lower resolution was used to show them completely (; the details of were showed again on 1000dpi). Working-methode. First I will show each scan full page, and then after, I will discuss on the parts enlarged of it. A scan resembling to an earlier one treated before, will also be treated in comparison in detail with then, all with listing of their source, in addition to prove the falsification of the (source) images. Scan ZHS1H will also be compared in detail with the Ct scan of December 2000.
ZHS1 Cervical Frontalis photo ZHS1F with markings of points of attention.
On this handmade frontal made scan of the complete neck (C1 – C7) we see on top the edge of the cheek (white), which is partly ‘overshadowing’ the first vertebral C1. At the height of C3 we see a clip (c) with wire and lying behind an undefined shape. Only C6 is ‘sank in’. Under C7 we see the first breast-vertebral, the two clavicle’s and the begin of the top side of the chest. Above to the right at the long side (b) we see odd enough also a digital mark, while this scan were actually made by hand. Concerning the name plate I can mention that this very one is used on all ZHS1 scans.
a
c
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
b
T1
ZHS1 Cervical Frontalis photo ZHS1F with markings of points of attention.
a b made by hand vs. digital writing KN / NG- SR 97490717 – 2 22207371 R-notation product report type of negative SR-REGULAR 007406
c What is exceptional to this scan is, that see a clip where through a wire-form is running through. The clip mounted into that field. In comparison with the other scans of both the hospitals this will show out further. Behind the wire-form of lowest eye of the clip we see a shape rising up that I only see on C3 and I do not find it back on the other vertebras…
d Concerning this name plate we can mention that that this very name plate including tape in this quality is appearing on all ZHS1 scans. Through the name plate the background is shining through on this only scan. Above it appeared that on ZHS1H the name plate was scotched over another one. Signs of copying through of plates of images in layers over each other to a new image.
ZHS1 Cervical Oralis photo ZHS1O with markings of points of attention.
On this scan made frontal we see clearly through the mouth opening C2 Axis, with the clip situated against C2 (also mounted). This clip is placed a bit higher then in previous scan, while this clip is supposed to be closed in within the canal of myleum between C3 and C4. (Again, scans do not know perspective.) Hence we see the same nameplate including the same form of attachment material. We can see the report R (a) as from a handmade scan and next to the left side we twice a digital notation (b1 en b2). The scan has a clear block in the middle where the X-ray radiation could expose the negative at its maximum. The sides aside were exposed less, and they even show the contour lines of the neck and under-cheek.
d
b1
a
c
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
b2
ZHS1 Cervical Oralis photo ZHS1O with markings of points of attention.
The ZHS1 Frontalis Oralis is cut enlarged here for visualisation. Besides the nameplate (d) not visible on this selection, we still see the other mentioned aspects, with complete down at the bottom the two digital codes (b1 en b2). Next to this we see a wire-shape connected with the clip (c) in the image as also the indication R when scanning by hand. On the next page the mentioned selections will be shown enlarged.
a
c
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
b1 b2
ZHS1 Cervical Oralis photo ZHS1O with markings of points of attention.
KN / MG-SR 97490717-2 22207369 (b1)
KN / MG-SR 97490717-2 222073(7?) (b2)
Enlarged: There is undeniable a difference between the two codes, one is ending with 69, while the other has a seventy-number as ending figure. And this one and the same scan! Apparently a trace of manipulation; why do not all ZHS1 scans of that size have such a double digital number? But there is another remarkable fact to be found.
ZHS1O detail (c) ZHS1F detail (c) blz53 Especially the position of the clip on both photos token frontal are not the same, while they have been made practical directly one after the other. The dimensions of the third vertebral have in this compare comparable proportions. Also the size of the clip seems to differ. Also the curve of the processing wire-shapes between the two clips is somewhat different also in length. Also here I make the conclusion of assembled mounting of a clip into another image.
d The nametag ZHS1O is visual identical to ZHS1F
C3
ZHS1 Cervical Sagittalis photo ZHS1S with markings of points of attention.
This scan was like ZHS1H too large to fit completely into the scanner. I have hung up the negatives to a tight cord with a large white paper behind and a lamp shining diagonal in between, so I was able to photograph the scans as like the Duo Scan is scanning. The indication if we see the left or right side is missing (a) on this sagittal scan. The scan does have two digital codes (b1 en b2), which will be compared with each other. The clip scanned from its side now is located between the third and fourth vertebral, while on the Oral scan ZHS1O it was reaching between C3 en C2! The wires that ‘were’ at the end of the clip are missing now. The nametag (d) is identical again including attachment material. The nametag is shown here at its maximum and is identical to the one to the complete tag on ZHS1H. The scan is shown mirrored to keep form-corresponding shape with ZHS1H and the CT scans.
b1 b2
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
c
d
ZHS1 Cervical Sagittalis photo ZHS1S with markings of points of attention.
KN / MG - SP 08190762-1 13200309
KN / MG – SP 08190762-1 13200308 In comparison again the ending figures appeared to differ. The last scan ZHS1H has a corresponding number KN / MG - SP 08190763 - 1 43300907. But the forgoing series had deviating serial numbers: ZHS1O had KN / MG-SR 97490717-2 22207369, ZHS1O had KN / MG-SR 97490717-2 2220737(?), and ZHS1F had KN / NG- SR 97490717 – 2 22207371. ZHS1H is besides the largest scan, but has only one digital number. In other words it can not be an incidental cut off from a roll of film, for then scan ZHS1H also should have at least a part of a following number. Or in other words also here we can speak of an assemblage of layers of negative one over another. The vertebras shown on the scan ZHS1S do not belong to me, for I do not have a serious sank in seventh vertebral (even worse then C6), above Prof. Seibel stated only the sixth vertebral as the vertebral being sank in. Or in other words, also here scan manipulation is definitely an issue here.
On this enlargement of ZHS1S we get a good sight of the clip. The clip is now situated between C2 and C3 near the myleum canal. The clip however does not show eyes and also no wire that should be visible at both ends of the clip. And besides from the difference in location there is no correspondence in the shape of the clip, if we take the flat side or the small side of the clip, there is no image-relation. Next to this the bone-contour-line is shining through the clip, what is pointing to two negatives placed over each other instead of a metal object what should be shown flat on a X-ray-scan-negative. For a metal clip this is not normal as a visual appearance on a scan anyway. The nametag (d) again is equal to all the others from ZHS1; the forgoing scans ZHS1F and ZHS1O had the tag-image a bit cut in. The ZHS1S nametag is therefore good to choose for comparison.
ZHS1 Head Sagittalis foto ZHS1H met markering van aandachtspunten.
Like ZHS1S the scan ZHS1H was too big to fit in the scanner completely. I have hung up the negatives to a tight cord with a large white paper behind and a lamp shining diagonal in between, so I was able to photograph the scans as like the Duo Scan is scanning. The scan ZHS1H shows only one digital code (b). Under the again identical nametag (d) is still another one! On this scan there is an indication R again (a). Now the clip is situated nearly completely on C3! The wires that ‘were’ connected to the clip are missing. This scan is form-corresponsive with the AMC CT scan from December 2000, where I get back to underneath. C2 now all of a sudden has two Processus Spinosus mirrored and attached to each other next to a double nametag. The scan is manipulated and seems to be a copy from the CT scan from December 2000.
a b d
c
C4
C3 C2
C1
ZHS1 Head Sagittalis photo ZHS1H with markings of points of attention.
Besides the clip other parts are to be mentioned as well close to each other on this scan. .We see the nametag with other information cut off underneath (d), and next to that we see digital scan information (b), and at closure we see a mark of making scans by hand with the indication R (a).
The digital notation as mentioned before is: KN / MG - SP 08190763 - 1 43300907
The clip is situated mainly at the height of C3. And all of a sudden there was a double Posterior Arch on C1 and also C2 looks double. This is in any case not the result of exposing one time only a negative, but a wrongly worked out image manipulation. We still go a bit further with CT scan comparing, where after we will continue with the scans of the second series ZHS2O and ZHS2S.
d a
b
The sinus-bone-lines (white arrow) are showing resemblances between ZHS1H and the CT scan from December 2000. The chance to scan the head in exact the same position is quiet poor, compare the other two Ct scans for. Is ZHS1H a result of projection of the CT from Dec 2000 on negative?
Dubbele Processus Spinosus
Sinus-Bot- lijnen
ZHS2 Cervical Oralis photo ZHS2O with markings of points of attention.
On this frontal digital made X-ray we see clearly through the mouth opening C2 the Axis, with a little clip close to C2 situated. In the Dutch clinic they worked with loading negative-holder-cassettes by hand etc, this wasn’t here the case. The equipment was more modern and the scans were quickly ready within 10 minutes. Enlarged we can see that the brand name is written in mirror. (Again: X-ray scans do not know perspective.) Hence we still see under the nametag (d) the remains of another plate. We see a square covered what could have been the notation R (a), or could it have been from a handmade scan? Above to the left we see a digital notation and the brand name (b1 en b2).
b1
b2
C1
C2
C3 c
C4
C6
C7
a?
d
T1
ZHS2 Cervical Oralis photo ZHS2O with markings of points of attention.
The little black ‘square’ could have been a (former?) marker marking the side of the scan (R), but that indication is lacking here. Black fuzz-lines are also walking further over that square.
The photo has 1 digital number. 0007770400938
Brand name is written in mirror (notice the letter ‘A’). What struck me is the gradual fall back of the information into the black area. This points at negatives being layered for printing through.
To the left we see the clip as shown in ZHS2O and to the right is the comparable scan ZHS1O shown with the clip in a slightly different position. Both scans show a little clip located just under C2. The quality of the image on scan ZHS1O is a little bit of a lesser quality then ZHS2O.
Also this scan carries an underlaying notification. The scans in the Netherlands were made a two months earlier then the scans in Germany. In Germany apparently they have imitated the scan-manipulations that were made in the Netherlands. Now proof is there that there is acted in purposive and blameable cooperation. Apparently the cult of silence is maintained strongly even concealing improper medical violating behaviour. Complicity in forgoing illegal implanting has become a fact with performing X-ray manipulation as obstruction in research.
ZHS2 Cervical Sagittalis foto ZHS2S met markering van aandachtspunten.
The indication of we the left/right side see (a) is missing on this sagittal scan. On top we see a digital number (b1). The brand name to the left (b2) remains fully visible now in mirror, but to the right (b3) is an extra digital number that is falling back into the black, which is not in mirror, what again is pointing to negatives being layered. Maybe scan ZHS2O also had information to the right, but that fell away in the black background. The clip is located between the second and third vertebral. The wires that ‘were’ on the clip are missing again. The nametag (d) again has an underlying nametag. And Scan ZHS1S and scan ZHS2O both have been made within one minute of time!?!
b1 b2
b3 C1
C2
C3
C4
c
C5
C6
C7
d
ZHS2 Cervical Sagittalis photo ZHS2S with markings of points of attention.
The photo has 1 digital number. 0007770400939 (b1)
The brand name remains visible now in mirror. (b2) Further information is running of into the white.
On the right side is information not in mirror , which is running of into the black.
The clip on ZHS2S (left) hasn’t the same position as the clip on ZHS1S (richt). The clip to the right is folded a bit less (and looks longer with), which is alienating for an encapsulated object. In addition the contour of the bone line is shining through the clip, which is very uncommon for a metal object where the negative should show a blank form, which also indicates two negatives being place one upon the other in stead of a metal object being shown flat as spot on an X-ray negative.
Also this nametag has under laying information.
Besides the fact on ZHS2S (left) and also on ZHS1S (right) the sixth vertebral C6 significantly sank in, their are minimal differences to be found between the columns in dimensions and shape.
C5
C6
Some photos showed while under the Agfa Duoscan a strange fuzz of stripes, something that cannot come into existence by the process of production of scan exposure, neither by scanning of the result.
ZHS1H and ZHS1O showed this at strongest; the scans of ZHS2 showed this too, ZHS2O at best.
On this scan from MRI we see clearly that C6 has been sunk in. By the sacking in a narrowing of the spinal canal is to be seen. C3 did not sink in, but still there is a narrowing of the spinal canal to be seen, as a result of an object that appeared to be placed tight around the third vertebral. This fact impossibly can be done as a cause by a (so called) vein clip that would have sank down from the head into the neck. Herewith in addition of what Prof. Seibel wrote we can call the installation of a damage causing artefact. The concealment of it by X-ray fraud is the concealment of evil affairs, and is to be seen an act of getting involved with complicity in criminal offending behaviour. The MRI scan was made two weeks before the first X-ray research in the Netherlands, the second X-ray scan was made nearly eight weeks after the first one.
C3
C6
At last still al the nametags together, in order to show there has been worked ‘creatively’ with. (Do note that parts of the under laying scan that specific is shining through the name plate of ZHS1F!)
ZHS1F
ZHS1O
ZHS1S
ZHS1H
ZHS2S
ZHS2O Within maximal one minute of time two ZHS2 digital scans ‘were made’? Unbelievable!
CONCLUSION Because the cyst is going that deep, it was possible to cut into the vene sinus rectus. The opportunity makes the thief, in this case the researcher. There was made a MRI scan right before with contrast fluid and marking tops as a kind of buttons glued upon my head, which were removed after that surgical treatment, so as the insufficient surgery report mentions the actions done were under neuro-navigation. They knew exactly what they were doing. Next a hole was made craniotomical on the left side of the head, and after underneath damaging surgery was performed on the right half of the head. In stead cutting a piece of membrane (covering layer) out which is containing three layers on top of each other, with significantly more endangering risk they have -while going underneath to the right deeper inside the head- violated the vene sinus rectus and with this all the brain separation walls. In stead of cutting a hole through the sub-arachnoid layer and the underlying pia mater, they have been cutting in the falx cerebelli on notably the right half of the head. Also illegal surgery has been performed in the neck, where with a damage causing artefact has been placed. There is no vain clip that sagged down from the head into the neck, that is technically impossible even; moreover it appeared that a vain clip or an-organic object was still present in my head. The secret medical activities inside the head are to be brought back in relation with the size of the cyst providing the space for, but the surgery in the neck is not directly related back to the medical subject of the cyst. Regarding the why are a lot of suggestions to be made, like regarding what they were trying out experimental before arriving to this final medical situation, but fact is that all is to lead back to the abuse of a patient for scientific targets, without the interest and permission of the patient. For this plural fraud has been committed for concealment of criminal activities, notably even in international cooperation concerning the fraud with x-rays. I can call in fact the formation of an organization for criminal handling in cooperation within the medical sector with. Meanwhile my results of investigation have been accepted by the doctors of the institutes of inspection. The AMC responded in 2009 that they give a different interpretation to the WGBO (legislation for medical treatments). But blameable criminal offences have been committed. All doctors work under an obligation of silence, by which victims of medical injury of harm are being victimised secondarily. By study it appeared that the obligation of silence (the right to remain silent) of doctors mainly is there to protect their own group of profession, and not as presented as guaranteeing a fearless way for the care seekers to the care supplier. Note: the legal formulation dates from the same time as when doctors were formulating the Eugene tics, the extinction of inferior considered people. The lack of empathy is apparently a quality within the medical domain to ill-treat people on purpose? There is a taboo on medical injury of harm that has to broken. Also the power of the medical sector should not be absolute in issues of dispute; they should not be able to use fraud without punishment for etc. The law is not respected. Severe neglect and abuse have to be criminal prosecuted in order to be able to sift grain from chaff. Normal medical mistakes have to become arguable and should not be about financial compensation in the first place. We have found that there is no trias politica inside the healthcare: the doctor is seated on the chair of the health carer, legislator and the judge, and all under the oath of profession to remain silent for personal interest. Here with the codifications is also not respected. Legislation and rules are applied as pleased when it suits them (Prof. Legemaate). But with this the principle of sovereignty of the state upon the civilian is expired, and the civilian can start to obtain the wrights to proper judging execution, as a natural law. I use my case in the interest of honourable doctor who is obstructed and honest patient, I order to break through the impasse around cases of medical injury of harm, and for severe neglect and abuse should absolutely be indeed prosecuted criminal to make the difference. Malpractices in medical activities should be fought back also in respect for the work of honourable doctors.
CREDITS and second thoughts. For this study I used Philips Media Medical Encyclopedia barcode 8712581 450632 and mainly the Sesam Anatomic Atlas part 3 Neural system and organs of senses ISBN 90 246 6916 2 and Neurologie voor Verpleegkundigen ISBN 90 232 3394 8, the medical site of Harvard and other internet-sources. Also did I use a PIII computer with MS Windows 98 and Word, Irfanview and Paintshop Pro, with a scanner, and a digital photo camera. And I used a whole lot of consecration and patience to get to this result. While thinking back, I think that the ward sister also had not been informed exactly regarding the actual handlings, so everybody but the victim could get away with it, but to hear about their transmission was for me a useful push to investigation besides the large scar in my neck. When I had made my Dia Sana scans in august 2006 first, I was thinking that it would all be over soon now. But because of the cult of silence I was forced to investigate all myself. It took me nearly two years to understand the scan results; it really took time to be sure of the results. So I have had made private MRI scan research at Dia Sana and M.R.I. Germany. After making a anatomic study I became able to interpretate the scan results. All pictures from all the MRI scans were extracted with the extraction tool of their original MRI-viewer, but this did not work quiet well. Therefore I used DOS to convert the DICOM files to viewable independent files (.DCM) in respective maps for converting them after in Irfanview to .tif and .jpeg file formats. (This leads to the opportunity to scroll through an amount of images, and even to group certain images together into a little .AVI-film.) After that selected files were researched further with Paint Shop Pro with adjusting the contrast and the light, colour enhancement in gray tones up to even solarisation, all to get things better visible, because besides the malfunctioning extraction tools from the MRI DICOM viewers, there abilities (except the OLVG viewer) to adjust contrast settings etc. were more limited... (Microsoft, Jack Software, Grandview, internet, thank you very much; power to the people for democracy!) What you have read here in this epistle are the out comings of an honest attempt to get a clear understanding of what has happened, and what is the result now. With certain acquired knowledge in my ability as a layman I have pointed out the case at its maximum I think. The size of the cyst gave the opportunity to perform such a unique (unregistered) medical experiment, without my permission. A parody is written ‘Pleit Zooie en Pleit Dooie’ Plight Bloody Plight Messy in addition on the next page. Here we are dealing with a deliberate medical handling, where the acts were not specific in my favour of health, on the contrary. Sacrificing the interest of health of the patient for some kind of experimental project goes against all medical values of the oath of Hippocrates. I command you to use the case in the interest of honourable doctor and honest patient.
PLIGHT BLOODY - PLIGHT MESSY Cutting through of the falx cerebelli in stead of the spoken and to the generalist reported phenestral cutting through the lowest layers brain membrane into the direction of left cisterna magna being the sub-arachnoid layer and the Pia Mater. The more they report this violation as if it is the most common thing in the world, under ignorance of basic knowledge of the anatomy according to this surgery report. But the falx cerebelli is the separation wall between the left and the right half of the little brains. The tentorium is the horizontal separation wall separating the larger brains form the little brains, the larger brains also have a separation wall falx cerebellum which is situated in the lengthened of the falx cerebelli. In the cross point of the falx cerebelli / -cerebellum and the tentorium is enclosed the unanimous major vene sinus rectus. (In case the cyst was situated on both half at start, instead of the left half only in the left quadrant underneath, then maybe there was a deviating anatomic situation, but not in this case.) The single vene sinus rectus is draining away as a vene the inner brain fluid from the left and right venes sagittalis inferior and the underneath situated venes cerebri magna. The vene sinus rectus is in the confluence continuum connected to the vene sinus sagittalis superioris which is ending up via the vene transverses into the vene jugelaris which is leading to the hart. To report to have hit a vain so-called by surprise, (with conversion of the report being the vene sinus rectus) is false. The vene sinus rectus is the fifth vein counting from the hart, which in its existence with knowledge from the anatomy notably under neuro-navigation reference (with the untold use of contrast fluid) can be found. Venes are by the way visible through the membrane. Next this that vene has not been named, and also it has not been reported if the vain was repaired; only the staunching of the bleeding has been reported. Hereafter they even cut further into the falx cerebelli, where they think not to see a vain. They suggest as if they operate in a dangerous area; Ambush! They might think of course that under the flag of ignorance, and a surprise everything is allowed for them? The surgery report is significant insufficient. The vein being hit is not named, neither if that one was repaired. The use of a clip in the head has not been reported as well, and neither the incision that running down half way the neck, neither the illegal implant. An incision of that dimensions was not needed for the proposed operation. A hart operation is also not done ‘funny’ with an incision from the navel, Harakiri! Thus, a crime concealed in medical terms… The parables underneath give a comparing in non medical parole:
- In stead of the demanded hole into the floor a hole has been made into the wall. There were some electricity-plugs known, and likewise they hit so called by surprise a wiring not to be called. This one they remove just ‘eyes wide shut’, under the excuse not to see that one, where in result the wiring hit is also not existing anymore: problem solved for the wiring being hit. Fact remains: the demanded hole in the floor has not been made, but the undertaking has been reported and billed such as being done.
- Operation target: opening backseat trunk and taking out sport bag (with the car key belonging to…!): To open the trunk we crash the back-window, and take the suitcase (!?) from the backseat… We put the suitcase back again, and we enter the trunk by pulling forward the backseat. We grab the sport bag and put the backseat back in its place. For closing we glue a thin plastic layer in front of the smashed in window. Conclusion: miniscule operation (with sledgehammer) successful. (Was there something inside that suitcase?)
- A bank robber does not grab in the cash-desk where he is not thinking to see money, but he also does not give a copy of his passport while performing his violating way of reign. And in case he does leave something behind, (identification) this will certainly not be correct information. We also do not ask the robber to cooperate in the investigation, to point out some responsible for this. In the medical branch however this is such as happening in the judgment of cases. One judges primary with the report of treatment without external expertise…
The above stated parables are mend as a comparison to point out my findings in other ways by deduction of the juridical and medical facts and nomenclature. Unfortunately the parables are to be recognized back from the facts in the research file. What they have been experimenting underway is not complete clear, but the final results of the treatment are far going pointed out, and here is acted definitely unacceptable. Reason to bring up this matter in the service for honorable doctor and honest patient. Underneath still some inclusions for verification. Make the System Work!
