Accidental Death?

Thomas Keske tkeske at mediaone.net
Sat Jan 19 18:08:19 EST 2002

I must confess to a certain amount of mixed feeling
about the rash of microbiologist demises.   Anyone who
is an expert in the area of AIDS and ebola ought to have
a bit of a clue that something isn't right with the picture.

Therefore, anyone who is an expert in the area of
AIDS and ebola is not likely a completely innocent
human being.

I've encountered microbiologists who did indeed know
that something was wrong, yet did not speak out.

I can imagine that knowing enough about AIDS and ebola
might be the very thing that could make someone despondent.

I was contacted recently by a Genetech employee who
confessed to me that I was absolutely correct, that the
company knew about the contaminated vaccines, and
that is was very "cloak and dagger."

Ted Strecker was a "suicide", too.    Maybe Wiley was a
suicide like Ted Strecker was a suicide, Craig Spence
was a suicide, Danny Casolaro was a suicide, etc.

Perhaps knowing too much  about AIDS can be dangerous
 knowledge.   That shouldn't frighten many here, since there
is so little knowledge.

Science, academia, and media have all shamed themselves
as much as in Nazis Germany.  If this version of reality happens
to be the correct one, then there is not much of anything that
could happen to any of them, that they wouldn't really
have coming.  I think that most of the human race is
utterly damned.

"Thomas Keske" <tkeske at mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:NH628.81744$Sj1.33133924 at typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> The newspaper reported a conclusion of investigators that
> Harvard scientist Don C. Wiley died of accidental causes.
> The autopsy report theorized that Wiley was lost, had been
> drinking, had a minor accident, got out to inspect the damage,
> and a gust of wind blew him over the side of the bridge.
> This conclusion sounds preposterous.  Ordinarily, I would
> suppose that they are are just protecting the reputation of
> Wiley and Harvard, and are protecting the feelings of the
> family, from having to confront the more likely scenario of
> a suicide.   One would be inclined to just let it go.
> It would still be slightly unsettling to see reality being
> altered that brazenly.  However, in this case, the public has
> a right to know the real story, because of possible connection
> to terror and other recent events.  Public safety issues trump
> even  the feelings of colleagues and family.
> One article that I received recently had a different theory:
>   "Those who would pervert and convert the available information
>   for the development of weapons have a problem. Many if not most
>   of the scientists involved in the field are working for the betterment
>   of mankind in conquering diseases. If they were to become aware
>   of efforts to pervert the research, they might raise objections and
>   expose those responsible. (Some may already have reached that
>   point.) This might be the explanation of the recent mysterious deaths
>   and murders of top scientists in the field. Then again it might just be
>   the concept of "compartmentalization" where few are to be privy
>   to the total picture.
>   Since the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center,
>   no less than seven or eight top microbiologists have been murdered or
>   died under suspicious circumstances."
> I don't believe that any conclusions can be drawn yet, but the "gust of
> wind"
> theory is probably the least plausible theory of all.
> The article said that the bridge had "only" a 4-foot high barrier.
> If Wiley were 8 feet tall, then maybe it would make more sense
> to say "only" 4 feet.   For a man who is 6 feet tall, a 4-foot bridge
> is 2/3 of his body length, and well up to his chest.   That may be
> tall enough to jump over, but is too tall to "accidentally" fall over,
> even if you are completely drunk and in a gale force wind.
> The autopsy report supported its "accident" theory by saying
> that no one had seen any sign of struggle on the "busy" bridge.
> That is also illogical.   No one saw any sign of a stranded motorist,
> or a man being blow away by a gust of wind, either.  How "busy"
> could this bridge been, especially at 4am in the morning, the time
> at which Wiley's car was found?
> The autopsy report that it wasn't likely a suicide, because Wiley
> had hit a support beam, and most suicide jumpers would
> supposedly jump out further, over the support beams.
> That doesn't make sense- it you are trying to kill yourself, then
> why should you care if you are going to hit a support beam?
> Also, it was late night and probably pitch dark, below the bridge.
> Slipping right over the edge is just as plausible as a swan dive.
> The report also said that Wiley had a few drinks earlier that
> evening, and this constituted more evidence that it must have
> been an accident, because he would have been a little more
> disoriented.
> It is somewhat doubtful that such a successful researcher
> would have much of a drinking problem, or it likely would have
> hampered his success.   Furthermore, many people who commit
> suicide are likely to ply themselves with drink beforehand, also.
> Suicide isn't the real issue, though.  It is important to get at the
> real truth, because there are a number of scenarios where scientists
> in certain professions might be under attack, just as embassies,
> or New York City,  or air flights have been under a pattern of attack.
> People who don't want to hear that concern are the parties who
> are being the more truly irresponsible ones.
> If "conspiracy" is such a dirty word, then we should not have
> illogical autopsy reports that are more implausible than most
> conspiracy theories.
> September 11 was a conspiracy, and it was real, and it was serious.
> It might have been prevented if the possiblity had been taken a
> bit more seriously, beforehand.
> Tom Keske

More information about the Microbio mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net