Mark sent this message for the Board to me today. Apparently, for whatever computer glitch reason, he is unable to post it himself.
*******************************************************
(from Mark Purdey, Somerset, UK)
I was greatly saddened to read some of the wildly irrelevant and impertinent comments that have been posted about my research data and hypotheses on the origins of TSE.
I feel that my critics need to do their homework first, before launching into their tirade of speculative and misguided comments about the authenticity of my first hand research into TSEs. Since most of the critics are professing to hail from an academic background, then they should study the true basis of my work, by educating themselves with my peer reviewed published papers ( chartered on the pubmed and other databases ). They will see that my hypotheses are based upon a raft of real life analytical observations which I have amassed from the numerous field excursions that I have undertaken in the main TSE cluster zones around the world . They are also based upon a cross linking of many other research works in the field of TSE science - these studies being duly referenced in my publications.
I therefore am at a loss to understand how my work can be outcast as 'suspicious' , when I have devoted twenty years of my life to an extremely intensive and thorough hands on investigation into the origins of TSEs I am insulted by such comments. Whatever information is cited in my writings ( whether nerve agent dumping in the UK seas , hand clap tests for clinical BSE , etc ), I have always utilized a valid reference in support of my statements .
And then another commentator goes on to say that " we all agree that rogue metals play a role in the cause of TSEs, but Purdey's ideas are simply.................."
What a short memory this commentator has. If they had studied the scientific literature in the proper way, they would be aware that it was my own original paper - published in Medical Hypotheses 2000 which presented my novel analytical data from Iceland , Colorado, Slovakia (recieved at the Elsevier editorial office - 1st April 1998 ) and was the first paper to propose that a rogue metal replacement of the copper / zinc domains on native prion protein was responsible for the origins of TSEs. Shouldn't I therefore get some recognition for this groundbreaking observation ????
The fact that other researchers have subsequently plagiarized my data and hypotheses does not destroy the hard historical reality of my intellectual copyright, my original research investigations and publications ( internationally broadcast on a BBC world film for God's sake ) .
In this respect, I feel that it is totally unfair that my work is being subjected to this misappropriated assault on your pages.
Others go on to say that i am ever changing my theories, as and when they are refuted by the establishment.
Please describe the work by the establishment that has successfully refuted my position? The only study that I was aware of involved the exposure of recombinant prion protein to the DFP type of organo-phosphate , and this trial was totally irrelevant to the testing of my hypothesis on the following grounds ;
Firstly, because the toxicological properties of the DFP molecule are totally different to the toxicological properties of Phosmet - the OP insecticide used upon UK farms during the relevant period , and secondly, because the recombinant prion protein does not contain a glycolipid anchor - the actual region of the prion protein amino acid chain which represents a target for OP induced phosphorylation and protein misfolding . So the whole experiment was worthless.
Likewise, several other attempts to refute my work have employed equally irrelevant research protocols .
Since new research discoveries are arising on a virtual weekly basis in the area of TSE research, my own environmental theory on TSE cause needs to be open to change in order to remain viable. Like any other theory, it has to be capable of accommodating these advancements. This is the healthy evolution of a scientific theory at work. I therefore feel unfairly criticized on grounds that my theory has evolved (eg: changed ) over the years .
What is so wrong with that - for god's sake? Wouldn't we all be better off if the establishment's theory had remained open to change over the years . In this respect, progress would be made towards resolving many of the missing links in the aetiology of these diseases.
Others have expanded their criticism of my work, by erroneously stating that I have moved from pesticides, to heavy metals, to sonic waves, etc, as a cause of BSE. But these people are wholly ignorant of my work. They have failed to get the most basic gist of what i am actually saying.
Clearly a straight forward metal or pesticide toxicity does not provide an adequate explanation for the cause of these unique TSE diseases - since mammalian exposure to the various metals, and to some extent, the pesticides, has obviously gone on for years prior to the emergence of TSEs. To suggest that my research has not recognized this basic factor is completely inaccurate and unfair. It’s insulting of my intelligence.
However, I have advanced upon this basic tenet, after collecting further analytical data of the levels of magnetic susceptibility , radioactivity, piezoelectic capacity of the soils, hard tissues etc, in the TSE cluster and TSE-free areas. So whilst the same specific elements (eg; phosphorous , manganese , barium, etc) remain the central nucleating agents in the aetiology of these diseases, it is the piezoelectric capacity of the specific crystalline metal-protein conglomerates which are subsequently formed within the contaminated tissues that represent the pathogenic driving force within these diseases - eg; representing the heat resistant, transmissible , pathogenic capacity that interweaves with the other environmental prerequisites into a unified , viable hypothesis which fits all of the well recognized idiosyncratic properties that define the causal agent in TSEs.
Furthermore, my work is not a case of the egg before the chicken - I have never started off with a theory, and then tried to force subsequent observations to fit the picture as some are suggesting. I have allowed my first hand environmental observations in the cluster environments to gradually assemble the right theory that would seem to fit all of the facts. There are bound to be cul de sacs, and false leads, but the theory has kept on evolving. Nobody is going to hit the nail on the head; particularly if they are operating without the benefits of government or corporate backed funding, like myself.
I would strongly recommend to those critics who profess to hail from a scholarly background, that they should actually begin to make the effort to read my academic publications in the first instance, rather than relying upon the misguided hearsay.
I also feel that your readers should be aware of the personal and financial hardship that entrepreneurial researchers such as myself have had to endure for the 'crime' of launching fresh observations and ideas into the public arena - particularly if those findings should threaten the reputations or vested interests of the status quo scientists in any way.
Whilst many reputable scientific establishments are currently making a small fortune out of the fruits of my own pioneering work, my own life has ironically degenerated into a state of total collapse. All I ask is for a bit of basic human respect, and not for the accolades of acidity that are sent my way nearly everyday. Thank you Kathy, for being the only intelligent and open minded contributor to ranchers.com
Yours,
Mark Purdey