Still Another Reason for Poisoning Could be… Unwilling Research Subject.

Accidental or Intentional Acts of Incompetence… That is the Question!

As discussed in the November 23, 2011 post, the UAP actions that lead to the poison were accidental or intentional incompetence. In brief, it was classified as being either lust-rejection or down right ignorance in understanding. However, there does exist an alternative reasoning behind the poisoning that has yet to be discussed.

This third possible reason was suggested to me by my brother in telephone conversation a year or so ago. At first I didn’t give his observation much merit but in retrospect, with the regain of mental faculties, I believe he had made a valid point.[Side note: family or, more precisely, how some family reacts during times of crisis is an entirely different subject that will be discussed in more detail later.]

My brother suggested (as reworded by me) that the poisoning was not an incompetent act, it was an intentional experiment based on the following reasons:

  1. Since the biological cleansing process of strong based anionic resins (cleaning of materials that typically went to landfill after 1 use) was not common in the water filtration/cleaning industry, and therefore any possible side-affects on technician’s health was not known. [Research was needed.]
  2. An accelerate process (change in the last process) resulting in more unwanted exposure and poor working conditions was necessary to observe any potential ill side-affects to health that may result during the course of full-scale occupational exposure conditions. [I became the unknowing test subject.]
  3. Withholding the biological and chemical exposure information was an indication of the UAP’s guilt. As stated in the earlier post, a complete list of these harmful agents has yet to be provided nearly 6 years later, even though it was “court ordered.”
  4. The sole economic sponsor of the unsafe and unethical research organized, managed and run by the UAP, was also a CA company involved in basin water extraction, changed their company name during the unemployment compensation hearing (delay) process. [Very Suspect.]
  5. The whole process, previously patented by South Korean Scientist, was being patented under the UAP’s name based on research I conducted. The question is not if I have right to the patent, it is does the UAP have right to the South Korean Scientist’s patent. I was only proving that scientist’s process as described by the UAP and as far as I can tell any UAP claim to U.S. (or International) Patent for this process is suspect. [Side Note – This patent was in addition to the extraction process that I developed during the sample IC analysis process which UAP claimed – the UAP patent claim in the extraction process I developed is (as far as I can tell) fraudulent because no patent rights were released or granted prior to the conducting of any research. Another word for the UAP’s actions is theft… more to follow on this issue.]

It comes down to 1 of 3 Reasons… Why did the Poisoning Occured?

As the proverbial smoke begins to clear from poisoned mind, it becomes more evident that the unethical and incompetent actions of the UAP were driving by one of 3 possible reasons:

  1. Accidental Incompetence - the UAP did not understand the magnitude of the research and basic biological safe research practices that led to: (1) the UAP’s failure to follow university policies and procedures, (2) the UAP’s ill-equipped research facility that resulted in unnecessary exposure, and (3) the UAP’s lack of ethics and fear in being exposed for gross incompetence (as being a fraud) dictated the subsequent cover-up… [This appears to be the most probable reason.]
  2. Intentional Revenge – my rejection of the unwanted sexual advances led to intentional poisoning. This reason would mean that the UAP meant to cause physical harm and was actively engaged in financial terrorism. This is unthinkable for an “education professional” in a major United States University to be a part of… but, based on the actions by the UAP prior to the poisoning I can not rule out this possible reason (Intentional Revenge) as of yet.
  3. Unwilling Test Subject – the Tuskegee, Alabama clinical study, conducted between 1932 and 1972 by U.S. Public Health Services is the closest comparison I can draw to this unethical research practice that I had to endure… although the duration was much longer and it involved 100’s of more test subjects, the victims of the Tuskegee research volunteered and I was an unwilling test subject. I would hope that this reason behind the poisoning is not even close to being partially true. If even a hint of this reason was the cause for the poisoning… I do not what to say.

More to Follow…

Happy Thanksgiving… the truth will be told.

Never give up and Never back down to bullies!!!

About Survivor
This entry was posted in Background, Biological & Chemical Exposure, Cover Up, Fraud, Health and Safety, Not an Accident, Reflection, The Accident and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.