A Letter From The Editor: Just Shut Up and Stop Rocking the Boat

Subject: The Pharma Tragedy of Kurt Danysh

I understand that you consider yourselves advocates. I ask that you consider that your piece (which should have authorship clearly identified)might not read as you believe it does.

I find the piece to be dangerous to Kurt for the following reasons:

1) While you might have gone after the law, the rules of court, and the FDA and Big Pharma, you appear to have "personalized an attack upon" the DA and the Judge. This not only pre-prejudices Judges and the DA against Kurt, but may very well come back to haunt at any/every parole hearing in the future;

2) While you may feel that you are within the law re #1 above, you might ask yourself what that actually means to Kurt. Does being within the law mitigate any unintended consequences, really? Does such a position serve Kurt's purpose (now or in the future)? (Fyi: laws vary from state to state. Particularly laws with regard to menacing or harassing: regardless of law there is the PERCEPTION: Kurt is a convict. He MUST behave and conduct himself according to a higher standard.)

3) If you wish to be circumspect and truly advocate for Kurt, you will consider what I have said here, and will be responsive to any of his future wishes with regard to either redacting or removing this piece (or at the very least clearly labeling it as being written by, the the personal opinion of, the author.

I thank you for your time and kind consideration. Frankly, the piece offends me to my core as does the concept of not identifying one's self as the author and accepting responsibility.

I hope you are responsive to Kurt's wishes from this point forward and that you truly are a positive force with regard to the travesty and injustice that has befallen him (and so many others).

Caroline Carter

I might assume you are unaware "circumspection" and/or honesty/openness are NOT antonyms. I am astonished to find you further argued/made my point re "personal attack" when you responded to my letter to you (re name calling or attack versus cogent argument or rebuttal). I also might assume you have never been to a Parole Board hearing, or never been seated on such a board. I have known a DA to travel 300 miles, and a Judge weigh in via strong letter, and ensure denial a parole opportunity (for far less caus e/reason imho than your focus on the above parties, and verbage choices) re Pharma Tragedy.

Of less import perhaps, your "credits" are so minute that any slightly vision impaired types like me can't find them. When you quote extensively,as Pharma Tragedy does and employ entire blocks of text originally written by another or otherwise claimed to be written by another elsewhere, the issue of authorship can become confused.

I sincerely thank you for making it crystal clear I have valid cause to take issue, and that we are NOT in agreement or acting in concert. That will be vital to my credibility in other matters. (Nope, not part of the injustice system in any manner: working on behalf of those who are without the tools, knowledge, expertise and sources to do so on their own.

As always, I appreciate your time and attention. Your form of journalism is such an eye opener. No wonder the big boys and corrupt systems prevail with regularity!

thank you ever so much for publishing my letter to you. (i am not so happy about being advised that i was being recorded.)as for the name calling you have now directed toward me, i rest my case with regard to your employment of said technique. to further inform you, i am retired, and have been actively involved in science and agency/statute battling for years.

so, you are journalists? by what standard and practice, may i inquire (rhetorical)

caroline carter (my very real name)

All this negative blabbermouthing by those who think they know so much but do not know anything other than what's in front of their faces is going to hurt Mr. Danysh in the short and long run. Although I fully sympathize with the good intentions of the editor and I agree with most of the articles on this site, I also happen to know for a fact that Miss Carter is not a self serving part of the justice system. If you must know, she paid his filing fees and was going to continue paying whatever he required to further his case, but your nasty rebuke and false accusations have apparently negated this and she will refrain from any further assistance.

Thanks guys. Your lack of humility and reflection on the possibility that MAYBE you were wrong in publishing your initial article; that MAYBE it would definitely work against Mr. Danysh, is utterly appalling. It makes me wonder just who is the self serving entity in this. WOW! Just WOW!

Joseph Vadis