1

Siegfried van Hoek

Five Years After Additional Medical Research 2013 (part C)

Part C ADDITIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH FIVE YEARS AFTER Introduction Explanation on part C Page 2 Additional Information Medical Developments 2013 Page 3 MRI Scan research compared with forgoing scans Page 6 Extra selection from M.R.I. Germany 2007 in addition Page 12 Introduction of investigation after X-ray manipulation Page 18 Theoretic information supporting RX (x-ray) Page 25 Overview of RX scans ZHS1, ZHS2, ZHS3 to be dealt with Page 31 Analysis of RX Scan-manipulation AZ Nikolaas 2013 Page 32 Scan comparing on details of RX scans ZHS1, ZHS2, ZHS3 Page 36 Resuming Page 44 11 attachments Medical reports (partly in A and/or B) Page 46 The Medical Research and the Fraud Investigation were written down in separate files, in order to separate the medical facts from the facts of image manipulations meant for concealment, resulting is respectively a part A, and a part B. In part C the continuation on both the epistles is put together into one epistle, whereat page 2 till 17 is connecting to part A, and page 18 till 44 is connecting to part B. This layman study is made with MS Word. For evaluating this work, it is recommended to study it with a computer, so you can use a zoom function. On the printed out version the images shown may be shown in a far less quality (lesser shades of gray-nuance).

2

Five Years Later. Additional Medical Investigation part C. Siegfried van Hoek 2013.

Lectori Salutem! Underneath you will find a comparing report about a MRI- and an X-ray research from 2013. In 2006 and 2007 private MRI scans were made in assignment for a forensic investigation after medical damage causing operations done in secret before. The operations examined were of intentional kind, I call the deliberate medical error and the secondary victimization of victims under the cult of (concealing) silence. (It is preferable to read at least the case expositions I and II.) For medical treatment of an intra-dural cyst -in stead of making a window-opening through the layer most underneath of the covering brain membrane on the left side of the head- after making an opening at the skull left side (!) there has been cut just over the middle on the right side of the head into the vene Sinus Rectus and with that also the complete system of brain separating walls has been violated. (Note: The circulation of brain-fluid is going through into the Spinal canal till all the way down in the back, but it is unlikely that this part in itself is able to compensate the lacking of the natural system of drainage in the head. Hereby should be mentioned that the spinal canal has narrowing around the vertebral C3 caused by a pinching artifact which apparently has been placed there.) The vene Sinus Rectus has been violated, where with her function as main vein for drainage has been sabotaged, but also the vene Transversalis is showing a reduced or either missing passage through. How is that possible? The vene Tranversalis is the drainage vein that is connecting the system of drainage of blood from the head (vene Sagittalis Superioris and Sinus Rectus with underlying venes) with the vein of drainage in the neck being called the vene Jugelaris, which at its turn is connected to the heart. Is there an issue of artificial drainage (hydrocephaly) of brain fluid? How come it is possible that (although in smaller extend) I am still living and functioning if so with a reduced capacity of drainage of blood from the brains? And what is the cause for a deficient functioning of the vene Transversalis? By cutting through the separating walls the cyst now is stretching some more towards the right just over the middle of the head. Is the cyst pushing against the de vene Transversalis? (In itself a somewhat larger wall of the cyst ios resulting in a slightly lower pressure per mm2.) Is there an issue of a drainage-bypass system as an alternative for a strongly reduced drainage of the natural system of care? There also has been operated illegally in the neck, where at a damage-causing artifact has been placed. The implant has been called to be an extinction artifact attached around C2 and C3 by Prof. Seibel Extinction means deliberate harm… (causal aspect: pinching, or extinguish living cells by also something else in/with the implant? Is the implant containing a medication-reservoir and does it maybe also contain a monitor-function? How far was the ‘extinction’ meant to have its operational function on the organism? What are/is the function(s) of the separate components of the artifact in the neck each? Is a part of the implant involved in the system of bypassing? Because of the cult of silence (obstructing the forensic investigation (also concerning the implant),) some questions are still unanswered: a surgical forensic investigation performed with integrity only will supply decisive answers about the physical situation of the implant. The medical question is: may there be an issue of an artificial compensation for the partly lacking of the natural drainage or not, and what is the function of the implant and how it is build up? I had to go through a learning curve under/against the cult of silence in order to be able to overtake what the medical abuse was including. My findings made also raise new questions, whereof report. If the secret acts were done with good intentions they could have informed me seen the level of knowledge I developed, but instead persistent fraud and denial with concealment in together span has been committed: offenders behavior...

3

July 2013 a new MRI reserach took place, and upfollowing also a X-ray-investigation after the implant. Underneath is a comparing with forgoing scan researches:

AZ Nikolaas Campus 06 July 2013 AZ Nikolaas Campus 06 July 2013

Name Date Height Depth AMC 09 Dec. 1999 7.4 cm 4.5 cm 08 Feb. 2000 7.5 cm 4.7 cm 04 Aug. 2000 7.4 cm 4.7 cm 27 Okt. 2000 7.3 cm 4.6 cm 19 Apr. 2001 6.9 cm 3.9 cm OLVG 08 Jun. 2006 6.8 cm 4.17 cm Dia Sana 18 Aug 2006 7.2 cm 4.5 cm UMC 14 Dec. 2006 7.3 cm 4.4 cm M.R.I. 13 Nov. 2007 7.32 cm 4.60 cm AZ Nikolaas 06 Jul. 2013 7.19 cm 4.80 cm AZ Nikolaas 06 Jul. 2013 7.31 cm 4.47 cm

The cyst has only grown a little further into the deep, but it has shifted some more into the width. (The Cardio-medication is playing a tempering role in tonus cyst-pressure.) The growth of the Cyst is invasive and is at expense of the space meant for the care of the brains.

MRI Duitsland Nov 2007 UMC Dec 2006 source Medical Research part A

4

In 2013 a renewed MRI and RX (x-ray) took place, where of no medical report has been given. Underneath a report with comparing of selections from forgoing researches:

source MRI 2007 neg (p. 30 part A) AZ Nikolaas 06-07-2013 image p.2 up to the right The posterior scan of MRI 2007 is showing that the artifact is containing several parts. The lateral sagittal scan from AZ Nikolaas is confirming this image, and it makes clear that the pinching around is around C3(X) and also C2. There are some more interesting scans from the serie of AZ Nikolaas to show, that lift up little tip of the curtain, alos concerning the implant.

5

AZ Nikolaas Campus 06 July 2013 With enlargement to the left. On the scan we see a rhobic black shape. This may point that the earea in that space is empty (?). I cannot connect an interpretation further to this, but to me it appears as that we are dealing here with a image deviating from a normal situation?

AZ Nikolaas Campus 06 July 2013 With enlargement to the left. AZ Nikolaas had done lesser research in scanning, but it did confirm the MRI scans from Dia Sana and MRI Germany. The implant was giving quite some deviating images…

6

On the scans of MRI Duitland and Dia Sana some interesting scans were shown:

Dia Sana 2006 Dia Sana 2006 Disturbance in the mouth to the left (probably upper jaw) as well as in the nek (image left). The scan to the right is showing (draining) veins. The vene Sinus Transversus (S.T.) is vaguely visible, as well as the Vene Sinus Rectus (S.R.), which is pointing on a lacking of its function. We also piece a piece of suplly vein A. Carotis Interna. Apart from the observation that the vene Sinus is showing a strongly reduced passage or is even lacking in function, I can’t make any additional remarks more. Further MRI investigation after causes for this is usefull. (Recent review of the scan of MRI 2007 did not deliver any clues about drainage.)

MRI Nov 2007 MRI Nov 2007 Disturbance in the mouth and in the neck (left). || The vene Sinus Rectus is lacking and there is operation material left behind in the head (right). ( Bron Medisch Onderzoek deel A )

S.R.

S.T.

Sinus Sagittalis Superioris (S.S.)

S.S.

?

No Drainage ?

7

This scan from MRI Duitsland date 2007 was the very first scout scan being made. On the scan we see supply- and drainage- veins of the head and the neck. This part of vein (arrow) we also see back in the Dia Sana scan 2006 on the former page on top. In the past I was asking myself if this was a piece of vein or a part of a drainage system. Later I called this vein as part of one of the a. carotis veins. Review of MRI material from 2007 confirmed this. The scan series from 2007 were made with contrast-fluid, so the route of blood being pomped around in the body was able to be followed, because a part of it was lightning up as a result of an injection with contrast-fluid. With this the fluid-movement is abled to be studied. On the up-following pages a serie of coups is shown in restudy of the head and partly of the neck, that are showing the flow in additional research to point out that vein.

8

Notice the indicating arrow for pointing the way of the route of fluid-flow.

9

10

MRI Nov 2007 MRI Nov 2007

AZ Nikolaas Campus 06 July 2013 AZ Nikolaas Campus 06 July 2013

Is there an issue of leaking liquor through one of the smaller Foramen (compensation-factor for lacking drainage)? || The ring form left is of physical kind and maybe part of the artefact.

Two disturbances shown in the neck around C2 and C3

11

On the previous image we saw a possible ‘leak’. Underneath a selection is following with four upfollowing coups that will show this phenomena further with an enlargement under:

In the enlargement we see a piece of carotis vein lightning up white. And we see presumably a movement downwards of leaking liquor (arrow). Possably that the leaking of liquor is compensating the over-pressure in the head (by lacking of the natural drainage). (See also the epistle Medical Initiation for further explanation about brain-fluid-circulation.)

12

A few scans of MRI Germany 2007 were not shown yet, but together with the scans from St. Niklaas added, these are interesting to shown in addition to the whole.

This scan from MRI Germany 2007 fits in with the scans from AZ Nikolaas on the forgoing page. The scans from AZ Nikolaas 2013 showed a (presumable) further develloped liquor-current (Leak?). On the scan of AZ Nikolaas the offspring of that current is reaching far above the Oral cavity reaching up till the skull-basis, where also some smaller foramen are situated. Ik suffer from a chronic esophagus-irritation. When I strive physically I first felt a burning sence in my head whereafter it started to burn on my esophagus. The complaints arose gradualy since 2006. Under the influence of blood-pressior lowering medication because of a hart-infarct (2010) the tonus got lower and with that the pressure of the cyst is lower, by which further expansion of the cyst was slowed down. The pressure in the head got lower, but the esophagus irritation is still there with certain regularity. The use of esomeprozol (Nexium) is tempering the complaints indeed, but completely free of complaints I am still not with it.

Esophagus -irritation?

Liquor LEAK or

bypass-drainage ?

Oral cavity; the esophagus is only starting at this height.

13

In A Medical Initiation NL it was made clear that because of the way the muscles of the neck are running C3 / C4 was the ideal spot to be able to get at the neck vertebras passing through in the middle. Likewise the incision in the neck is also running from the head downwards towards approximately the height of C4.

Part of the C2-C3 implant?

T1

C7

C2

C3

C4

C4

A little vein-clip it certainly is not.

Again some scans from MRI Germany not being shown before:

enlarged

14

MRI Germany had some interesting coups, whereof we show some again:

MRI Nov 2007 MRI Nov 2007 (enlarged) The disturbance in the neck covers several vertebras; this cannot be caused by a single metal object being (or suggested to be) left behind in the neck near the third vertebral. And we see a possible lung ailment, which has not been called in the report? On the scan to the right we see traces of a bleeding (hematomic ferro traces) just under the skin up to the bertebral canal. The ferro traces near the vertebral canal are the most evident and are related with the damage causing function of the cervical implant around C2 and C3.

MRI Nov 2007 MRI Nov 2007 We see a clear narrowing (image left) of the spinal canal. If a metal object would have sagged down and got stuck there, then this would have given a rather pushing outside effect. The scan to the right was one of the scans Dr. Stückle showed because of injury (white spots) caused by blood that had come under the skull. He added in remark to that, that I was at an age now where recovery from that kind of injury probably is not possible anymore. ( Images are also in Medical Research part C )

15

In this series of axial images we see the neck vertebrals starting on top to the left starting from the shoulders (C7) till the skullbasis. From the 13th coup the image disturbance is beginning (counting from above to the left downwards to the right at the bottom). In coup 17 the disturbance is at it’s largest. This disturbance is central around C3. Then after the disturbance is diminishing somewhat, for increasing after again starting at coup 21 and then reaching a maximum again at coup 23 (that is at the height of C2) in order to diminish after. The disturbance of the image is around the vertebras and covers several vertebras. One Doctor made aware, that a disturbance around a vertebral couldn’t be caused by a mere metal object that should be located at the backside of the neck, because then the disturbance also should be seen at the backside of the neck only. The metal object, which prof. Seibel called as an extinction (-murder?) artefact, is excisting with several parts devided over two vertebrals C2 en C3. Also this point makes clear that we are not dealing with a single vainclip what should be located between C2 and C3. Also the posterior scan from MRI Germany, which is shown enlarged on page 3, makes clear that that the implant just can not be a single object located near C3 (, or otherwise situated between C2 and C3 as manipulated RX in three series are suggesting).

16

Enlargement of coup 17 (C3 object). Technically speaking the sagging down from the head towards the neck is an unrealistic story, because a clip with a span of one and a half centimeter then should have sagged down through the Spinal canal in a month time, which in itself also has a diamtere of two centimeters, wherein notably are running 32 pairs of nerves from the braintrunck all the way down to the most down situated Lumbar vertebral L5. This area including the brains is packed in a three layerd membrame. The clip therefor cannot pass that envelloping system of membranes and end up in the Myleum canal between C2 and C3, as the Ct-scans of the AMC and the report of Jan van Goyen intend us to believe. In the past image manipulation has been comitted in the investigation after the implant by frustrating the x-ray. In my findings also the x-ray research by doctors of the AZ Nikolaas has been frustrated with image manipulation. Underneath is following a motivation of my claim of fraud. (This for closing the fraud-investigation and in addition to the forgoing Rewritten Fraud Investigation.) End of MRI Research AZ Nikolaas / MRI.

Ring is part of the image disturbance Disturbance around

The lacing in / pinching around is just underneath or above the vertebral-protrusion, by which the diameter of the ‘ring’ has a minimum size in comparison with the vertebral.

17

Introduction on the investigation of X-ray-manipulation:

The little clip shown is sided against the wall of the backside head. At this CT-scan, which was made directly after the opration medical secret handlings, one still could speak of operation material left behind in the head. But the reasoning / suggestion –of the two CT scans of resp. Nov. 2000 on this page and the scan of Dec. 2000 by the AMC shown on the next page- that the object should have sagged down in a month time passing through under the little brains aside the braintrunck into the Spinal Canal, and passing the second vertebral and at best getting out between C2 and C3, in order to get stuck subsequently in the Myleum Canal between the second (C2) and third (C3) vertebral protrusion where driving out ‘easily’ could take place. The epistle ‘Prestudy RX’ makes clear that this is impossible, even as that the forgoing page also pointed this out in short. Next to this in upfollowing x-ray scan series quite obvious fraud has been committed with x-ray material. I call for instance the ‘sticking over’ of nametags. If the RX-scans being made many years later would show a realistic situation of my neck at that moment, then why messing around with nametags would have been needed?

18

The clip shown is situated outside the vertebral column approximately in the Myleum Canal between C2 and C3.

The object is differing in size, shape and postion between the (left and middle) sagittal scans.

19

The rotation the clip is making from the sagittal scan (middle) towards the frontal scan (right) looks to be a rotation around a diagonal axis. A rotation of view of a photo at front to a photo from aside is in priciple a rotation of 90 degrees in standpoint of view around a vertical axis.

The clip on the sagittal scan seems to stand somewhat oblique, while the clip on the frontal scans seems this not and looks to be placed flat at it’s side. Under contrast operation we have sharpend both the scans in an attempt to define the three-dimensional shape. Because the clip in the frontal scans is more flat in position, I choose this one as a starting point for building the clip enlarged as a three-dimensional copy for the purpose of the rotation-research.

The side of the legs of the clip with the fat line running next to it is nicely straight, but the overside of it (thin line) is not. We take the straight side as starting point in order to define the form. The eye of the lower leg is showing some more image information to define the form. Starting from that we will define the definitive form ìn comparison with the form shown on the sagittal scan in order to define the final shape of the clip for enlarged imitating.

Wire ?

Wire ?

Frontal scan

Sagittal scan

The eye also has a flat part within for the rest being an oval form, see also the sagittal scan.

The form of the clip is hard to define. At which side are we looking at the inside of the side of the eye, and at which side are we looking at the outside of the side of the eye.

20

Imitation of the clip in plaster in favor of the experiment of rotation under photo-setup, in order to define what a real sight of view under rotation could be.

Because we had to make a starting point as a choice, we choose in comparison with the sagittale scan for looking at the outside of the side of the (lower) eye, in order starting from that to define the other leg approximately in its matching form.

The ‘frontal determination’ looks somewhat twisted, but the ‘sagittal scan’ is contradicting this. Therefor the imitated clip is build in an average shape.

21

The (approximately) imitating of the clip is sufficient, because the little photo-research is about the question how an object is showing itself under various positions of rotation.

Principle of rotation between a frontal view and a view from the left side: || Rotation clockwise Gives Sagittal image above Gives Frontal image above Rotation counterclockwise A Sagittal scan is being made with the right sode against the photoscreen and the left side towards the camera. The little cross symbolicly is indicating the side of the nose of the face. Changing of position around a person in a rotation of a circular orbit is around a vertical axis.

The model in plaster is showing approximately the clip in a threedimensioal shape. The position of the eye in comparison with the leg is still deviating a little, but for the first Photo-direct-research this is not a problem. If needed an additional little research, whare in shadow-play the position of the object will be projected on a white screen. (For this the position of the head has to be corrected indeed.)

Enlargement head:

F

F L

L R R

P

P

22

Rotation of the frontal immage under 90 degrees doesn’t give the immage of the Sagittal scan.

Sagittal image is not completely matching; the rotation of it does not fit with the Frontal scan. First conclusion in rotation-research after the object and its view after rotation: Both the positions of the object on the Frontal- and Sagittal- RX scan are not corresponding,

Imitation of the situation starting from the Frontal scan. Result after a rotation of 90 degrees clockwise is giving a deifferent position then the object on the original Sagital scan is showing. (In comparison with the situation of the Sagittal scan there is a difference of 30 degrees in outcoming.)

Imitation of the situation of the Sagittal scan approximately. A rotation of 90 degrees counterclockwise around a vertical axis gives a deviating view from the object in result (with also a deviation of 30 degrees). Above this, the imitation of the sagittal scan is not matching, while we were photographing standing straight in front of the object.

(F)

(F)

L

L

L

F

F

F

(L)

(L)

23

(Photo oblique position.) After a rotation under 90 degrees; the Frontal image is not fotting.

Frontal image does not resemble completely; also the rotation of it is not matching with the Sagittal scan. Second conclusion in rotation-reserach after the object and its sight: The objects on the original scan presumably have been photographed separately first (in a different position) and then added to the image of the separate scans each in overlay.

L F

F L

(F) (L)

L

(F) (L)

F

Immitation of the situation starting from the Sagittal scan (L). The camera is placed in an position oblique from above and placed slightly to the right with respect to the 360 degrees surface with 15 degrees subdivisions for this research. After a rotation under an angle of 90 degrees counterclockwise around a vertical axis the same deviating rendering of the object is shown in result.

Imitation of the situatie of the Frontal scan approximately. The rendering of the clip on the foto in presentation of the situation in the frontal scan does not resemble well with the inmage on the scan. Also the image result after a rotation clockwise around a vertical axis is deviating from the image of the Sagittal RX scan. The deviation of face is covering an angle of thirty degrees.

24

Samenvatting of findings from the first rotation-research: At the photo made oblique from above the image is resembling reasonably with image of the clip on the Sagittal scan. But in rotation of it a different result is shown than is shown on the Frontale scan. In the series of frontal photo’s the image is resembling reasonably again with the clip shown on the Frontal scan, but at rotation the result is not answering in resemblance again to the image of the clip shown on the Sagittale scan. In both situations of setup after a rotation under an angle of 90 degrees there is a difference in position to be found in result of about a 30 degrees between the image of the clip and the final result as shown on the photo. From the photographic research thus came forth, that the images of the clip on original Frontal and Sagittal scan are not corresponding in rotation:

- It showed out that immitating the situations of the clips each was only possible with a different position of the camera. Note: An X-ray photo is made with an X-ray projector which beaming perpendicular on a x-ray film (where at the subject to scan is standing between the projector and the film). The rotation is not around a vertical axis. The twisting of the clip on the frontal scan can be the result of the clip being forced inside an x-ray film-holding cassette?

- The imitation on photo knows perspective; the scan image does not. Probably two x-ray images were place over one and another. This explains why we see parts of the underlying body through the clip on the scans. Anyhow, there is a deviation of about 30 degrees between the two clips; the angle of rotation is not 90 but about 60 degrees.

Frontal photo is perpendicular with respect to the object for comparison with the clip on the Frontal scan (left). Camera-setup placed oblique from above and aside for Sagittal clip (right). Additional to this little research both situations can be imitated once more in a ‘shadow-play’ (compare the situation with wajang puppets), where with only contour lines the object are visible (equal to metal is blocking radioation and likewise in consequence is separating a shape. (The position of the eyes in respect to the legs still have to be corrected some what.) In proving the incongruity under a rotation of 90 degrees in connection with both the positions such an extra research however is not adding anything more. In this minor research it became clear that there is no 90 degrees rotation-connection between the image of the Frontal RX-scan and of the Sagittal RX-scan. Underneath (after a short introduction) is following the evidence of manipulation with various RX materials.

60 graden rotatie

25

In preparation on analysing the X-ray scans from AZ Nikolaas underneath is following a Theoretic introduction with Summary with findings from two earlier series.

The human being has seven neck vertebrals (C1 till C7), twelve thorax vertebrals T1 till T 12, and five Lumbat vertebrals L1 till L5, with at the end the sacral bone. On this medical drawing we can clearly distinguish de separate parts. The brain and the content of the vertebral canal (Spinal canal) are enveloped with a three-layered membrane, wherein the brainfluid circulation is taking place for the local supply/care. The brain membrane is passing the last Lumbar vertebral L5 and attaches to the Sacral Bone. This whole inner earea is a completely separated aerea from the rest of the body. It is impossble for a metal clip of small two centimeters to sag down from the head into the neck passing through the Foramen of the skullbasis into the Spinal Canal (vertebral foramen) to arrive between the second and third neck vertebral according to the CT scans of the AMC of Nov and Dec 2000, in order to en up subsequently (seen the repport of Dr. H.J. Wieringa) into the Myleum canal between the Processus Spinozas of C2 and C3. For further substantiation of rejection of the suggestion of a sagging down clip I point towards the writing ‘Prestudy RX’. Besides if an object would have got stuck betwee C2 and C3, then this would give the necessary friction on the nerves while moving the head; then I certainly would have been hampered thereof.

No real space for a sagging down clip

26

(Selection from a theory book about radiology.) We see the contour shapes of a metal key. Metal blocks radiation and films do not get exposed by this on that spot. Air on the contrary lets go through radiation the most and exposes the film the most resulting in a dark surface.

(If you look very well you can see that the bullets are not exactly of the same size. The bullets to the left above and at the bottom to the right are a little bit smaller. Becayse we do not know which bullets were used at what distance to the film we cannot give further interpretation.) Note: The effect of size that arose in the result of the x-ray photo of the test-setup is the consequence of the differance of distance of the object in relation to the film to be exposed... Compare it with a dia-projector setup. If a hand is kept between the licht beaming doa0projector and the screen, then a black surface saved out with contourline willl arises; the play of shadows is based on this. When the hand is moving closer to the screen, the image becomes smaller and more sharp in contour-line. Is the hand futher away towards the projector, then the hand-shape will become larger, but the contour-line will become more vague. In the evaluation of my RX series this blocking radioation and size is of importance.

A good quality of film can improve the precision of diagnosis. A film should not be under-, or over-exposed. In the example here next for instance are the five radiologic densities shown (neg) under a correct situation of exposure and rendering. The five radiological densities in order of increasing brightness:

1. Air 2. Fat 3. Fluid 4. Bone 5. Metal

Effect of enlargement. Bullits with a caliber .32 and .38 were placed on sevral places of the body, where after a x-ray photo was made with this test-setup. Because of the differance of distance between the objects and the film a difference in size arose (as an enlargement) of the bullets. Hear the bullets look as if they have the same size.

27

Route by which a (suggested) metal clip should have sagged down:

If the clip got outside the system of envelloping membranes after a journey from the head through the Spinal canal to arrive in the Myleum Canal, then the clip should have gone passing through the system of membranes, and this closed system then would have been broken through. This is intself already unreal, because then clip also would have gone passing through bone-tissue, which in itself is already impossible. Note: If the system of membranes would not be closed anymore the pressure and turbulence needed for the liquor-spoeling would fall back in care for the brains, by which the brains and the neurological system gets underfed, and dieback (infarct) will occur. This situation with breaking through of the membranes thus did not took place.

If a vain-clip / metal object in theorie could have arrived from the head into the Myleum canal in the backside of the neck at the height of C2 and C3, is a question of a whole different kind. First of all should be mentioned that according to the Ct scan of Nov 2000, the clip was still in the head. The clip only could get into the head by the craniotomic hole that was made in the head, and then it should be found in the space of the cyste. Unless the cyste also has been cut open at the bottom side towards the Foramen Magna (next to the incising of the Falx Cerebelli) it is anyhow impossible to sagg down for a clip from the cyste in the backside of the head towards the neck, because then it still would have to be locked up within area of the cyste.

Sagging down of a metal clip via this route?

28

The photo above of the backside of the back is showing the Spinal canal with the Spinal Cord wherein 32 pairs of nerve-branches are running through bundled with lateral branches. (That on this photo Thorax vertebrals are shown makes no differance in showing the Spinal Canal.) The lateral branches are obstacles for a clip if it should have sagged down. If a clip should have ended up arriving in the backside of the neck in the Myleum canal via the Spinal canal, then this should be visible on all the sagittal RX scanimages. On a few sagittal scans even a height differing image is been given.

This cross section (axial coup) of a vertebral (left above) of the neck is showing the Spinal cord with a size of about 1,3 x 0,8 cm. Around of it is placed the envelloping membrane. The cross section shows a passage of almost two centimeters. The little clip has a span of more then 1,5 centimeters. (The clip has two legs of about 1 cm long standing under an angle of approximately 145 degrees.) The clip does not fit in such a space seen the ‘remanining’space.

Trachus

Body Vertebral

Rib

Damage Vene Sinus

Location clip on CT scan Nov. 2000

29

.

The vertebras are kept on top of each other in place with Ligaments. At the vertebras are muscles attached with tendons needed to be able to move the head sideward’s and up and down. Together this is dense mass for a clip to travel through, that clip would give medical complaints to the moving muscles, because it would also lead to constant irritation. I do not see a medical reason to use a clip there in surgery as well, seen that the Carotids Internal’s and Vene Jugulars are veins that are not running at the backside of the neck.

30

RX Jan van Goyen Dec. 2007: selection ZHS1O on equal height and dimensions with ZHS1S This selection for compare is coming from Medical FRAUD Reserach part B. At a frontal scan in theory the object is closer towards the film then at a scan where where I am placed with my right shoulder towards the film instead of with my back. Because of this a compare between these image fragments is not possible to make properly, allthough it did give some information anyhow. The difference in stretching- and rotation-position of the object shown above here can be compared well: 1.) There is a difference in stretch mode (the amount of flexion) the object is making, and 2.) The rotation the object is showing is not along a vertical axis but along a diagonal axis. A separate research with a test-setup in 3D imitation of the object has demonstrated the deviation in rotation of the object already. The form of the object however is also not showing here a surface being cut out from the sagittal (/lateral) scan what is just typical for X-ray photo’s when metal is present there, therefor this scan ZHS1S already is not a real RX with a metal object. But the most evident is the overwriting of the nametags in forgoing X-ray series:

For forgoing analysis I refer to the reserach writings ‘Case Exposition II’ and ‘Rewritten Medical FRAUD Reserach part B’. In this epistle (C) the X-ray photos from forgoing series will becompared with those from AZ Nikolaas in the capacity of scans that have been made in a compareable situation of setup. In this part C various RX images fitting together in an equal situation of RX body-position and equal sizes of vertebras will be compared. Remark: If a clip was a een real situation, then why in the two forgoing series quite obvious there has been messed with nametags and also image manipulation has been committed?

Processus Spinoza C2

Processus Spinoza C2

C4 C4

Posterior Arch C1

C5

C1 C2

C2

31

Overview of ZHS3 scans to be discussed, in comparison with forgoing RX serie’s: The X-ray photos from AZ Nikolaas are of a far better quality, because they are completely of a digital kind. The advantage is offcourse the higher image-quality, but the disadvatage of this is that this kind of photo’s are even more easier to be manipulated. (Editing of for instance audio and/or visual material has become very easy with the possibilities of the digital era.)

Photo ZHS3F (Frontalis) ZHS3H (Head) ZHS3O (Oralis)

ZHS3S (Sagittalis) ZHS2O (Oralis) ZHS2S (Sagittalis) Foto ZHS1F (Frontalis)

ZHS1O (Oralis) ZHS1S (Sagittalis) ZHS1H (Hoofd) ZHS3S is of a more clear quality then ZHS1S, also for ZHS3H in comparison with ZHS1H. ZHS1H is presumably a reuse of the CT scan Dec 2000 (, which has been made in a position of lying down what explains the different position of the head). For convenience I point to the fact that the Ct-scan of December 2000 (ZHS1H) already has been shown on page 19. In this research we study the RX scans of ZHS3 separately and subsequently qua position and size compare the ‘artefact’ with the RX scans from the two forgoing series. (For anatomic information I refer to “Medical Initiation” and “Prestudy RX”.)

Series 3 (4 RX scans): RX AZ Niklaas Campus July 2013

Series 1 (4 RX scans) : RX Jan van Goyen 2007

Series 2 (2 RX scans): RX Mülheim am Rhein 2008

32

Photo ZHS3F (Frontalis)

On this scan ZHS3F (as well as on the other three ZHS3 scans) we see no nametags overwritten. On ZHS3F the (suggested) clip is to be found on the upper half of the third (C3) vertebral and on the intervertebral disk between the second (C2) and the third neck vertebral. The transition between C3 and C2 eyes messy, there is no clear sight on the intervertebral located in between. The transition is not fitting in nicely as is the case with the other underlying vertebrals. With this the first indication of manipulation already has been made again, because the other intervertebral disks lying underneath are well recognizeable. Just above the lowest ‘eye’ of the clip is a shape located which we can not (yet) point out in anatomy. The ‘wires’ on the clip we see back again on this scan. Do note: not all scans of all the three series do show this ‘wire’ consequently. In the research going deeper the area around the vertebral C3 will b examined enlarged and the specific image appearances will be compared with the other scans from forgoin series. Likewise ZHS3F will becompared with scan ZHS3O, but also with ZHS1F, and with scan ZHS1O and ZHS2O. Another question rises: why do other third persons like to become fellow-offender by committing obstruction in a crime committed forgoing? Image manipulation is multiple provable now.

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C1

C2

C2

33

Photo ZHS3H (Head)

Op this scan ZHS3H we see a strong Posterior Arch C1, which is showing itself stronger then on sagittal scans from other series. Note: ZHS1H even showed a double Posteriore Arch C1. The clip imaged is not a contour shape completely cut out of the image, as it should be with metal. And the clip shown is located outside the aerea of the Spinal Canal (, where 32 pair of nerves are running through with sideward branches to various parts of the body). If the object is located in the Myleum Canal between the Processus Spinoza’s of C2 and C3, then the object cannot have sagged down in the neck through the Spinal Canal, for then the object also should have passed through bone-tissue (, which is impossible). Scan ZHS3H will be compaired enlarged with scan ZHS3S because of her mutual sitution of scan research with an equal position of the body and the clip. Next to this the scan will be compaired enlarged with scan ZHS1H and ZHS1F, and with ZHS2S. In the compairings special attention will be put on the position of the clip and the proportional size of it in respect to the size of the mutual vertebras on both the scans and the location in relation to C2 / C3.

Posterior Arch C1

Processus Spinoza C2

34

Photo ZHS3O (Oralis)

This ‘oral’ scan ZHS3O is (different form normal) made with the mouth closed and there are relatively a few neck vertebras left visible on this scan. We only and just see C1 and C2 completely. The clip is located for an important share almost completely on the intervertebral disc between C2 and C3. This remarkable deviation also has been found on ZHS1O… Under C2 the Photo shows out somewhat messy, just as we could see on scan ZHS3F. This scan ZHS3O will be compaired enlarged with ZHS3F, wth scan ZHS1O and ZHS1F and with scan ZHS2O. Hereby next to studying the lacking of a clear definition of imaging of the intervertebral disk between C2 and C3, there will also be looked at the proportional size and position in relation to the surrounding vertebrals in comparison with scans made forgoing with a comparable mutual scan-situation.

Under Jaw

Upper Jaw

C1 C2

C2

C3 Discus Intervertebri

C1

35

Photo ZHS3S (Sagittalis)

Only the upper eye of the clip is situated here at the height of the intervertebral disk between C2 and C3 ! Scan ZHS3S will be studied enlarged and also compaired concerning the clip proportinal in respect to the surrounding vertebrals in size and location with scans ZHS1S and ZHS1H and with scans ZHS2S.

Posterior Arch C1

C2 Processus Spinoza

Scan ZHS3S is of a clear craphic quality. On this scan deviations are visible: The Posterior Arch C1 (as on ZHS1H ) is visible in double. Scan ZHS2S shows a normal situation again. Also the connection of the Processus Spinoza on C2 is showing here a deviation with a kind of cove (see arrow). Do they want to suggest that deviations in scans may occur more often? The clip is showing a ‘wire’ at the lower eye; and also the surface is not cut out, but shows details as on all the other scans. If there is an issue of manipulation, then that is done consequently incl. the errors being made.

36

MUTUAL COMPARISON ON RX DETAIL between series ZHS3, ZHS2, and ZHS1: Introduction: An artefact is a object made by human hands But in medical terms the term arefact is also used in the evalution of scans for naming unwanted signals leading to shapes appearing in the image of the patient which are not really present. In MRI scans they can occur for instance by movement, oversampling, differance of phase and chemical shifting leading to ghost-image forming. The term artefact in her negative kind is for pointing fake-image forming in instruction for adjusting a scanner correctly. Herewith however a bi-lateral (two-sided) terminology arises: On one hand we can speak of an object / image what in fact really exists and on the other hand we can speak of an object / beeld what just is not real by improper settings of the scanner. In the research after the RX series on one hand we can speak of an artefact in the terms of fake-imaging, because the (suggested) object has been mounted in it by manipulation, and is not really there, and on the other hand a question can be made regarding the real physical object as in fact an artifact (by human hand), because MRI did give some aanwijzingen to this, which are denied by fake-imaging in RX. What is of that importance that this has to be kept hidden by fake-imaging? In fact a fake-artefact (manipulation) here is serving for hiding a real artefact, and seen the forensic assignment for investigation we can speak of obstruction and offender behavior.

Scan ZHS3O was cut higher; there are almost no vertebras visible (see also page 16). Only the first two vertebrals are visible: C1 en C2. Because we are dealing with two scans made under the same situation (seated on a chair with the back against the photo-wall), we can speak of an identical situation and alignment on the size of C1 and C2 is a reliable benchmark to study the object. The object with ‘wires’ is showing itself placed a bit higher on scan ZHS3O then on scan ZHS3F. This effect of differance in height is also pointing to photo-mounting in consequence. We will compare the differance of height also with similar scan images from the other two RX series. But what is that form situated just above the lower eye of the object (see quenstionmark and arrow)?

ZHS3O

ZHS3F

Compare between detail ZHS3O and ZHS3F:

C2 C2

C3

?

37

Compare between detail ZHS3H and ZHS3S:

Scan ZHS3H and scan ZHS3S are token under the same situation (seated on a chair with the right shoulder against the photo-wall). By this it is legetimate to take the dimensions of the vertebras in position and size in comparison as a benchmark for the interpretation of the scan. Both scans appeared to be equal in size of vertebras shown, because of that an enlargement of one of the scans was not needed to get to see the vertebras in the same dimensions. ZHS3S is showing a double Posterior Arch C1 and a ‘cove’ at the beginning of the Processus Spinoza C2. The Processus Spinoza on scan ZHS3H is also a bit more robust and at the attachment on the vertebral body this one is even touching the vertebral underneath (; by this the object on scan ZHS3H looks to be a bit higher). These are all signs of photo-montage / scan-manipulation. Although the neck is standing in the same position, and I was seated right up with the head right as well, the object between C2 and C3 is showing a different position in spite of an identical situation (; on scan ZHS3S the object is making a stronger angle in the middle of it). Now the scans of ZHS3 have been compared pairwise belonging together, a compairing with RX scans from forgoing series of ZHS1 and ZHS2 for further indication of manipulation.

ZHS3H

ZHS3S

Cove

P.S.C2

P.B.C1

Spot the differances:

38

If we start from the height of C5 and C4 and measure on upwards with ZHS1F as reference, then the clip even appears to have risen! Scan ZHS1F remarkably is not showing recognizable parts of the head. Scan ZHS3F shows a deviation concerning the second and third vertebral. The third vertebral (C3) is longer then usual and/or the intervertebral disk is lacking, presumably because a layer has been placed over it. The bottom-line of C2 has got placed higher. The vertebral of C3 is visually not a smooth completeness and looks messy. It looks as if the scan is containing two parts composed together: from top till the underline of the head with the first two vertebrals pasted on the lower layer (or vice versa), two layers mounted together on top of eachother starting from C3. That photo-montage like in the first two series also is a fact of application in the third series ZHS3, scan ZHS3S is making this clear. Around and on C3 are also some dark spots, which I cannot point out in anatonomy. Are these visually reduced remains of the original scans, and the clip mounted serves only for distraction? The intervertebral disc between C3/C4 shows a deviating image form.

C4

C5

ZHS3F

ZHS1F

Compair between detail ZHS1F-ZHS3F:

Spot the differances:

39

Compare between detail ZHS1S and ZHS3S:

Scan ZHS3S is showing a double Posterior Arch C1 and the Processus Spinoza C2 is not nicely fitting to her vertebral body and is showing a little cove. We see underneath another Processus Spinoza running faintly. Just like as with the double Posterior Arch C1 the two double forms are not completely overlapping each other and there is even an open space in between the vertebral-protrusion of a same kind. C6 is a sagged in (old age wear). Here we have clearly an issue of digital photo-mounting. In scan serie ZHS1 (Jan van Goyen 2007) and ZHS2 (Mülheim am Rhein 2008) they had to work (mess) with a physical film, wherewith a stratification of a complete film arose including the typical traces of like running away of image-information, processing in the digital domain is just a matter of adding a mere extra digital layer a la photoshop.

ZHS3S

ZHS1S

C4

C5

C6

C3

C2

Posterior Arch C1

C7

Spot the differances:

40

Compare between detail ZHS2S and ZHS3S:

The remarks being made regarding scan ZHS3 on the forgoing page are also applicable here: foto-montage / image-manipulation (Double Posterior Arch C1 and a Double Processus Spinoza C2. There is apparantly something behond that has to be kept hidden? The scan at least contains two separate components that have been mounted one on the other, I think. On scan ZHS3S the neck makes a bending (see also p. 36 where scan ZHS2H and ZHS3S are being compared with each other), while I was seated upright with the head also upright. Therefore I also question myself if is this scan is belonging to me. On the next page scan ZHS1S and ZHS2S will be compared with each other, they show however a minimal difference in position.

Posterior Arch C1

C3

C2

C4

C5

C6

ZHS2S

ZHS3S

Spot the differances:

?

41

Compare between detail ZHS1S and ZHS2S:

Scan ZHS1S is made completely by hand including the photo-mounting. Copying through of negatives is a specialist’s job what has to be done in a special Dark Room without light. That is a difficult job if one wants to manipulate negatives and to overlay one negative with another one. Likewise ZHS1H came into existance with a piece of text left cut off. Scan ZHS2S was for sure partly made with digital equipment already, I refer to the findings in the epistle Rewritten Medical Fraud Research part B. The clip / object is showing a differance in position. On scan ZHS2S (made a vast month later then scan ZHS1S) the clip is situated even a bit higher. How minimal the difference may be: non of the scans is showing a comparable equal position in proportional relation to her background (with vertebrals that indeed are imaged with the same size. Still it is remarkanle that the exact location of the clip / object is differing on each scan…

C6

C7

C5

C4

C3

Posterior Arch C1

C2

ZHS1S

ZHS2S

Spot the differances:

42

Compare between detail ZHS1O and ZHS3O:

Compare between detail ZHS2 and ZHS3O:

The clip / object on ZHS3O is showing turned a bit more clockwise in respect to ZHS2O.

ZHS3O

ZHS1O

Between ZHS1O and ZHS3O is a big difference in position and height of the object / clip.

ZHS2O

ZHS3O

C2 C2

C2 C2

43

Compare between detail ZHS1O and ZHS2O:

The clip on ZHS2O is placed a bit lower then on scan ZHS1O. That the clip has moved in respect to the open mouth and the in the back (which is visible through the open mouth with the second neck vertebral C2; this is normal. A minor change of position (rotation) in perpendicular line in relation to the X-ray machine can make this occur already. But the differance in height in respect to the vertebras and the specific position of the object / clip on the other hand are factors of difference that come forth out of handlings of mounting.

ZHS1O

ZHS2O

C2 C2

C4 C4

Evolution of Fraude ? :

44

Compare between detail ZHS1H and ZHS3H:

ZHS1H is strongly manipulated with a double Processus Spinoza C2 (PS) and a double Posterior Arch C1 (PA) . The object is smaller in size and has a slightly different position. Summarizing: As far as the research is permitting we can identify, that the natural liquor drainage as a system has been violated -by for instance violating the vene Sinus Rectus-, and this while they only supposed to cut a little piece of the covering brain membrane. On MRI we saw that the natural drainage of brainfluid has been disturbed, and that plausibly the overpressure in the head (seen the scans shown on page 8) with the leaking of liquor under a kind of valve effect found a way out anyway. The image disturbance we saw on MRI was not just on one spot behind C3, but appeared to be around C2 and C3. It appeared that a damage causing system of artifacts has been placed around C2 and C3 according to prof. Seibel. This pinching off also fits in the reserach of prof C.W. Wright (brain transplantation)… Too crazy for words? Maybe not… Maybe the fistwide cyst invited to plan neurological experiments, in some aerea’s where one normally has no excess? Anyhow, all the three RX series appeared to be manipulated; there was something to conceal important enough. The last serie from AZ Nikolaas was made completely within the digital domain, but also showed deviations that indicate stratification of images placed one over another. That fraud has been committed in notably international span to frustrate the forensic reserach is a sign of strongly develloped international organized crime as phenomena within the medical sector. In any case there is an issue of deliberate causing harm (referring also to my other epistles for the motivation of this accusation); there have been given fals medical reports as if they have acted nicely according to the medical agreement of intervention; and afterwards obstruction has been committed in span in the forensic investigation. I identify the carrying out of medical abuse and cooperation in concealing facts after with obstruction in investigation. You are born to die, and the medicale sector is helping you to that; pain belongs to life?

ZHS1H

ZHS3H

The manipulation with the nametag also was the most evident visible here.

C3

PA

PS

45

(Note: The writing of false medical declarations and the manipulation in span of radiographic material is a form of medical (international) organized crime.)

THET PLOT OF MEDICAL ABUSE?

While it was only needed to make a little hole on the left side of the head in order to be able to cut away a piece of the covering brainmembrane locally, after having made the hole in secret they went through the hole under towards the right half of the skull (deliberate) causing harm and there also has been implanted illegally in the neck. In spite of these clandestine activities there was reported that there was acted confprm agreement that a hole was made on the left half, whereafter a piece of the covering brain membrane was removed. The reality is different.

The quite long incision till far down into the neck was the first indication on the suspicion of

medical figurative handling. The suggestion of sagging of a clip from the backside of the head down till the neck, like as the two Ct scans of the AMC November and December 2000 are suggesting, is the upfollowing second indication on blameworthy handling. After private MRI research in 2007 it became clear that we were dealing with illegal implanting into the neck, as third indication, what also explained the long incision in the neck. Upfollowing X-ray photos were manipulated to conceal the actual implant; in order again to suggest that inspite of MRI we are still dealing with a clip sagging down from the head into the neck. This sagging down from the head through the Spinal Canal, for subsequently passing through bone tissue in order to end up in the Myleum Canal is medically seen even and absolute an impossible serie of occurrences. With the image manipulation found it became clear, that there is an interest in concealing of clandestine medical handlings; offenderbehavior. In the privat MRI research next to the illegal implanting it becane clear, that the vene Sinus Rectus has been violated, and with this also the system of brainhalfs separating walls (horizontal and vertical). Also the vene Transversalis appeared to have a deficient to no passgae. With this the system of drainage of blood from the brains has been hampered seriously. Is there a realtion between the deficient passage and the cervical implant? On one hand the question rises how the lacking of a natural care has been compensated and on the other hand with what intention all these medical deeds were committed? There are no clues found for a brain-drainage. The series of AZ Nikolaas did show an indication for a possible leaking of liquor. Furter there are no answers to the question about compensatioon of a reduced drainage. The body has a certain kind of ability to regenerate and to remodelling. The question with what intention (goal) these clandestine damage-causing handlings were done is more complex. Next to the violation of the natural system of care of the brains there also has been implanted illegally into the neck. The implant in the neck includes several parts, which are tightend around the third and second vertebral. The attachment around the third neck vertebral is fastened that tight, that the Spinal Canal which is situated inside the vertebral also got pinched.. Intent in this thus is not unconceivable. Prof. Seibel called the impplant to be an extinction artefact, an artefact of a damage causing kind. The question now rises if it was the intention to help me experimentally direct towards the next world, or that it was a preparation in order to for instance to be able to transplant the brains in a next phase ?!? (This is no sciencefiction, the knowledge herefor practically excists since the fifties of the former century.) The suggestion of a clip sagging down (herein) also can be used as an excuse to mask the medical complaints in consequents of the clandestine intervention, wherefore I was supposed to put myself back under medical treatment after, when medical complaints occur in consequence, whereafter then they would have been able to contiue with a certain forced ‘donorship’ of the brains? A physical investigation after the composition and function of the implant will clarify one and another further.

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Dr. Schuurman has a different interpretation on the medical legislation then the WGBO law is telling. Hge is stating that I only can get a copy of the letters sent to my generalist, but the WGBO states that I may receive a copy of my complete medical file (including surgery- and nursing-reports etc.), except the personal working notes of the physician.

54

Dr. Wieringa is stating a sagging in of corpus C7, while C6 (also according to the MRI scan and the report of prof. Seibel) the neckvertebral is being sagged in. The statement that a little clip is projecting itself at the backside is a ambiguous statement. The term projecting can also be token as a conformation of mounting (projecting) a clip as an image in the total image of the scan. The report is of an objectionable integrity.

55

Report OLVG 2006 confirms in first research renewed growth of the cyst:

Name Patient ID Sex Date of Birth

HOEK van^SCAL M 1963.10.23

Body

MR Brain MS/contr klinische informatie: Controle na fenestratie grote arachnoïdale cyste infratentorieel naar cisterna magna. Afname in omvang? CD-ROM meegegeven. MR brein: Op de mee gegeven MR onderzoek is alleen de sagittale opname te openen en enkele scouts. Er bevindt zich nog een zeer grote cyste infratentorieel met een transversale diameter van 7,5 cm en een maximale sagittale diameter van 4,5 cm. Deze bevindt zich links infratentorieel de craniocaudale diameter bedraagt 7 cm. Het beeld is conform het onderzoek van het AMC van 8 februari 2000. Ongewijzigd wat impressie op het linker cerebellum met lichte verplaatsing van de midlijn alhier. Verder normaal foramen, normale configuratie en signaal intensiteit van de medulla oblongata, pons, midhersenen en supratentorieel. Er is een slank ventrikel en cisterne systeem. Supra tentorieel geen midline shift. Enkele zeer kleine witte stof laesies paraventriculair met name aan de linker zijde. Slanke sulci en gyri. Conclusie: Omvang van de arachnoïdaal cyste is in essentie ongewijzigd ten opzichte van 8 februari 2000. Met collegiale hoogachting, dr. D.G. Franssen-Franken, radioloog

Status Author

APPROVED Franssen-Franken^ D.G.

Accession Number Referring Physician

02639138 Strack van Schijndel^W.G.^

Study Description Reason for Study

MR Brain MS/contr Not Available

Report of UMC 2006 confirms neurological complaints by growth of the cyst:

56

Report Slotervaart hospital 2010 confirms pinchin auditory nerve pressure of the cyst on the cortex / brains (this also explains the sence of pressure in the head and deafness left + 70 dB):

57