> > > >Hi Allan, > >I've just been corresponding with Mark from Wisconsin about >plagerists which you are apparently debating at the moment on BD >Now. This arose after a Colorado journalist had given oxygen to some >plagerists of my work - despite having interviewed me at length, he >obviously decided that his journalistic license and success would >personally prosper if he donated all of my work to a few docters >rather than just a mere farmer !!! Please publish the enclosed >letter which i have just written to Mark - if you want. It seems >that he has suffered the same outrage in his past. > >take care , > >Mark > > > >Subj: Re: Franklin Carter Article FYI there is another part of this >just pri... >Date: 15/07/02 20:03:10 GMT Daylight Time >From: <mailto:MadCowPurdey>MadCowPurdey >To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Hi mark, > >Yea, please put up my comments to BD Now about the plagerists and >cuckoos which seem to currently predominate the whole scientific >scene. I am so bloody angry right now with this kind of treatment. >It will be great to meet with you and share our many common >interests and frustrations !! please send on the following >paragraphs too, as this whole issue needs to be sorted out on behalf >of so many genuine, more humble scientists ( and artists ) >worldwide. > >It seems to be the people with passions - like yourself with >glycoproteins, etc - who invariably become the people who make the >true advances in scientific knowledge at the end of the day. But >these creative thinkers are ironically the ones whose intuitive >energies and insight gets vampirized - simply because they are >totally open with their research and findings, wanting to share and >discuss any new knowledge which they unearth on their investigative >journey, etc. But sadly this open approach ends up destroying them. >For most of the sociopathic, sharp suited ,senior scientists - if >you can call them scientists - are more interested in becoming front >page 'media tarts' than following their supposed pursuit of >scientific research and advancement. > >Time and time again it is this same incestuous clique of expertise >who choose to abuse their position of power, considering it their >god given right to hijack every iota of original observation amongst >their students, outsider scientists, etc, and then cuckoo it out as >their own discovery to the uninformed public. It is not uncommon to >watch those same "experts" use any opportunity that they can grasp >to publicly discredit the very originator of the work that they have >just plagerised. Its sick. > >Having chosen to farm like yourself - instead of carrying on up the >ladder of mainstream academia - I have regularly found my own >original work becoming primetime prey for these vultures ! They >consider it a "walk over" to plagerise a mere farmer - no second >thoughts about breaking all the rules of scientific ethics. Despite >having published peer reviewed, copyrighted scientific journal >articles to my name ( with acceptance dates, etc ), my former >vindictive critics are right now regurgitating out my precise >hypotheses from the ealy 1990s under under their own name !!! > >Just recently I found myself subjected to the mother of all >plagerist assaults. After some high profile media publicity >surrounding my BSE research findings, the UK government's Minister >of Research , Baroness Haymann, invited me to submit a three >research proposal designed around my working hypotheses. The >government assured me that the work would be funded providing the >project was formulated upon sound scientific protocols. I teamed up >with reputable academic universities, and the proposal took me about >300 hours to prepare. After sitting on my proposal for one and a >half years - by which time the public interest in my work had waned >- I was appalled to get my study rejected for a host of irrational, >irrelevant unscientific reasons. One reviewer of the study had >actually misread the number of samples I was taking per cluster area >by twenty times less than the actual number that I had proposed. The >government scientists then trumped this erroneous critique up as >their key k nock down point on which my grant was rejected. Even If >I had only proposed to take one sample per cluster area - as this >idiot was stating - they could have simply advised me to take more >!!! > >Salt was truly rubbed into my wounds when I read how the government >had subsequently invited this same idiot to sit on their most senior >spongiform advisory committee. > >Worse still, my requests for personal data held on me which I filed >via the Data Protection Act, revealed that the government had >actually given a grant award for pursuing my work. Who had they >given it to ? the very reviewer of my work who had made such an ill >founded rejection ! > >The government had therefore tricked me into handing over the fruits >of my thousands of miles and pounds of self funded donkeybacked >research, so that their own tame "experts" could hijack the >politically convenient facets of my research. They had got the >funding, before I had even been informed of my rejection. Meanwhile >I remain unemployed. > > >Whilst this is good news from an objective perspective in that my >various hypotheses are at long last being taken on board by the >Establishment and that we might now see some positive action - >albeit ten years too late in the day - but from a subjective >perspective, I have to feed my family as well as recoup the >emotional / psychological damage to one's integrity - the legacy of >two decade's fight against establishment reductionism ! a chronic >public humiliation that the plagerists never need to endure.
