Declaration in between
After ten years of research and activities I came to certain conclusions.
- In my case -although through a process of err (mistaking the left side-chamber for the Cisterna
Magna for instance)- certain conclusions are about to rise also in subsidiary blame.
- And I have found with research on expert-writings about the setting by which medical violation on
patients in the western world is a respected and protected value. To be ill is big business over the
back of patients.
In conclusion in my case we might say that quiet more things did happen then just making a window
opening between the sub-arachnoid cyst and the Cisterna Magna; but the patient is completely
unprotected before and after. We can speak about a mechanical removal of the left Vene
Transversus, not caused by a natural thrombosis, neither by one caused by hitting the vena occipitals
(because that one is anatomically even missing before) etc. And there are more findings as partly
already exposed. But as a layman it is very hard to go against the stream of abuse of knowledge and
profession when being right on certain facts kept hidden and also when being wrong on certain facts
(not to be corrected) because ALL IS as much as possible to be kept in the dark. There has been
operated in the neck, as blood traces show out, but officially all doctors deny. But surgery was only
on the backside of the head, so no need for such a large scar. If a Michel-clip 14 x 3 mm 2
down from inside the head into the Leptomeningen being 1 mm thick only, and I did not get lethargic
of, then why there was a need to destroy the integrity of scan material with signs of manipulation of
the material, if there is nothing (else) to hide? Unofficially some doctors mentioned the situation of
covering up. But those that are in position to speak do not question the situation. Also for the foreign
material in the head, certain quotes were made in my network, but not officially.
In conclusion of the setting around abuse of medical legislation and patients: everything is set to
protect the image of profession in the first place: therefore also in evil matters. That is why we had in
the Netherlands 25 years long a Dr. Jansen Steur badly active, etc. The awareness of the over-
protectoral cult also gives the practitioners the encouragement to career-adventurism. I have
pointed out with Lacuna of Medical Justice in the Netherlands how come this can all happen and in
conclusion we might say in: If one goes to a doctor one is not all certain of the quality and integrity of
that person. Will it be a real doctor to help you, a career adventurer to abuse you or even a real
quack? Because of the code of silence is meant to protect the image of profession at the first place,
and the group of profession has to judge on issues in the first place, the entanglement of interest is
easily realized. That situation is also deliberately kept by (Dutch) politicians. Trias Politica is a joke as
democracy is with. People are only allowed to choose heads in elections. Real issues as this one do
not fit in a society mainly interested in producing industry. But this here is a mere example of wrong.
Maurice Jolie in ‘Discussion in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu’: Industry needs relative
peace and within (ruling) one can be corrupt and destroy people but within a certain limit. Make sure
that your victims also encounter very extreme things so also nobody will believe what happened. I
think the warnings from Maurice Jolie his book have been multiple taken for abuse with. I see in the
setting about medical legislation that Kafka-minded thinking nicely hidden as Jolie warned for before.