1

L.S. learned sir, milady, This writing is in addition to the file Casus Exposition (the latter named contains extractions of medical reports), and this second part in addition shows in a shortened version the medic situation in images where fraud has been committed with X-ray photo’s, which afterwards in further investigation were shown in the file ‘Medical FRAUD research part b+uk’. In the ‘redirected’ version a third scan series being manipulated was added and the text is reviewed. Underneath you will find a number of scan selections from a MRI dated 2007 of my body. Subsequently to the concerning MRI series also X-ray-photo’s have been made, which have been attributed to me, which I reject such as giving a product typical situation of me. They are falsely attributed to me. (The overwriting of the ascription in the first two series, only that already is a motivation for this.) I reject the validity and authenticity of the X-ray photo’s as radiologic report of my medical situation in comparison with the MRI. (Note: all forgoing MRI scans being made indeed are in logical accordance with the MRI scan from 2007.) My invitation to you is to compare the series of scan-images (series A=MRI and series B=CT-RX) in mutually relation and to arrive at your own conclusion.

Print-screen of the axial series of scans (MRI 2007) of the neck going upwards till the jaw. The series coups start below at the shoulders and go slowly upwards to the lower jaw. Starting at coup 13 we can see a distortion arising which is covering the complete vertebral and is increasing gradually. At coup 17 and coup 23 the distortion is at its strongest and fits with the distortions at the height of C3 and C2 shown at various sagittal MRI coups of neck-vertebras.

In Medical Research part B and in part C OMG the manipulation is being exposed in detail.

The distortion (black spot) covers the complete vertebral, by metal being present which is apparently attached around. If there only would be a metal object present in the backside of the neck (away from the vertebral), then there was just an image of distortion in the backside of the neck, and not such a significant distortion covering the complete cross section of that vertebral. Underneath will follow some MRI coups concerning the cervical implant followed by two Ct-scans and the three series X-ray scans with pointing at the most evident indications of image-manipulation. Seen the explicit assignment for RX scans (implantation investigation) manipulation is: deliberate obstruction.

2

Serie A afbeelding 1 MRI

Series A image 2

T1

C4

C2

C1

Distortion by iron-particles as a result of a local bleeding as a sign of medical intervention or in other words physical trauma. The Ferro-traces near the neck vertebras are the strongest, but just under the skin we also find back traces of Ferro as distortion. With this is to point out that medical intervention also took place form the backside of the neck, besides from the fact that all of a sudden to have received a large scar reach far downwards on the neck after that very treatment (being clandestine). (Photo at the right.) For further treatment of this subject why they implanted there precisely I refer to the epistle Medical Initiation.

3

Serie A Image 2 MRI

Distortion by remaining iron-particles as a result of a local bleeding, which can be seen as a sign of medical intervention/physical trauma at the third neck vertebral C3. It is not very likely that the pinching too tight around the neck vertebral alone could have caused the indent of the vertebral; it is more likely that the implanted object is grasping to that. This scan is showing the damage causing effect to the Spinal Canal caused by the artefact, which is attached to the neck vertebral. This is even shown better on other MRI scans. It is not unthinkable that the implant is exercising an influence on the care system of the brain fluid circulation inside the head which is also circulating within the spinal canal. Inside the Spinal Canal (vertebral canal) is running 32 pairs of nerves, which are essential for control of the body; violating this is a weighty committed (deliberate) act. Neck vertebral C6 is sagged in too and also there is a narrowing of the Spinal Canal shown, but this one is a natural result of old age wearing.

C6

T1

C1

C2

4

Serie A Image 3 MRI

There is a vertebral-canal-narrowing effect around C3 to be pointed out, caused by the implanted object attached around C3 causing the narrowing of the Spinal Canal. Prof. Seibel called the implant as an extinction-artefact with in result a partly extinction a pair of nerves (life- extinction / damage causing function of the implant). In any case the implanted object has not been implanted by accident, and being said in addition again: bone tissue does not let itself being pushed in just like that, in other words the damage had been caused on purpose. The wrong patient has been treated? No, there was also performed neurosurgical activities as well during that treatment. And at last: there also is a narrowing of the Spinal Canal to be found of 20% at the height of vertebral C6, which is caused by a natural sagging in of the neck vertebral C6 (age wear).

C2

T1

C7

5

Serie A Image 4 MRI

Typical distortion of an MRI scan caused by the presence of metal inside the body, which is showing itself at its maximum distortion typical zig-zag form. An MRI is a measuring based upon a strong magnetic field being pulsating emitted, where under an organism can be placed for study. A conducting human body, being placed under a changing magnetic field is subject to induction by little changeable small currents caused by the changing magnetic field, which encounter resistance in the human body, which in its turn influences back the magnetic field (induction). Those local changes in the magnetic (pulsing) field are picked up back again by the scanner and (under the condition the scanner emitting that magnetic pulses is put into the right settings) up following this is calculated into an image. But with that all everything possible has been mentioned here. MRI scanning has her own limitations, morphological this coup is not giving any indication more then the definite presence of metal inside the body.

6

Serie A Image 5 MRI

CT scan 02 Nov 2000: vein clip in the head CT scan 30 Dec 2000: vein clip in the neck

The artefact system shows parts layered above one and another. All MRI scans starting from the illegal treatment show similar images, a ring around C2, a ring around C3 and a knob nearby C3. A recent MRI research (2013) added corresponding saggital scan selection (right) to this, where with is visible that the implant is seizing around. Because the MRI techniques have evolved further now, this scan was able to deliver additional images; for further information I refer to the epistle ‘Medical Research part C OMG’. In spite of findings still forensic investigation is needed to be able to point out further the implanted object on function and damage, also in causal damage in function. Further investigation is needed, because (also according to Prof. Seibel) with MRI the implanted object can not be defined further also morphologically.

X

X

7

Condensed findings from MRI research as defined in Medical Research Part A

The MRI research showed that the Vene Sinus Rectus was violated (left side), and that there was left behind material in the head (at the right), and also that there was implanted into the neck (underneath).

The artefact in the neck contains several (inorganic form-) parts, where under a ‘tie wrap-form’. Besides a strap there also is a knob to be seen in the neck (‘pouce’) as the two scan here above show.

Directly after the 2nd treatment CT-scans were manipulated; these are also described in the epistle ‘Medical FRAUD research part b+uk’. The suggestion is being created with these CT scans that a vain clip would have sagged down from within the head. In ‘Prestudy RX’ it becomes clear that that presentation is false of kind and is an impossible situation. The study after the scan-manipulations starts with the description of the two CT scans and then continues with RX scans in chronologic order.

8

Scan selection related to the cervical implant. Alternative drainage for compensation of a lacking V. Sinus Rectus and functioning V. Transversalis? Leaking of brain fluid towards the Oesophagus.

Contrastvloeistof ‘vlek’

9

CT scan-manipulation suggests a vain clip sagged down from inside the head to the neck

ZHS0H_CTnov2000 ZHS0H_CTdec2000

It is impossible that a vain clip (rigid metal) could sag down from within the head to the backside of the neck without any problem in eight weeks time and got stuck then there after.

10

There is no space for a vain clip to sag down through the large skull-bone hole ‘Foramen Magna’ into the Spinal Canal. Also the clip should have gone through the membranes and bone tissue then. If the clip was situated between the membranes and the bone tissue, so outside the brains ‘wrapped in’: also then the bone tissue hinders the way through for the vain clip with the membranes situated against.

After the findings with private MRI investigation a persistent RX-manipulation has been committed to present an end-situation of that clip as was suggested with CT-scans.

RIBS

OPEN VIEUW OF THE COVERING MEMBRANE LAYERS

Visual support with anatomy: the vain clip impossibly could have sagged down from the head.

11

.

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.

12

On this collection of images we see on top at the left a moment of surgery in the neck for placing prosthesis. On top to the right we see the theoretical image of a surgery-situation. Below we see at the left a scar going downwards from the head towards halfway the neck. The image at the middle below show us how the muscles are running, which shows us that for surgery on the vertebras underneath just above C4 the muscles can be shoved aside easily . The deep incision inside the neck leading to such a scar was for being able to perform surgery; such a cut is not made for no reason. After that just move the muscles aside to be able to reach the vertebrals. The image of cervical operation and the actual large scar in the neck (which was not needed for a brain-operation) together with the corresponding theoretic images and actual MRI scan results of reserach after the object, make clear that surgery inside the neck for placing an artefact being is a very possible fact, which needs to be examinated further forensic on its causal function and construction.

13

FACTUAL IMAGE RESULTS FROUND WITH MRI RESEARCH:

Geen ruimte voor neerdalende clip

14

For the correct counting of the neck vertebras on a frontal scan one has to start with searching for the 2nd Thorax vertebral T2 with the Clavicle and T1 (big protrusion sideward’s Processes Transverses), or the up sticking part of C2 (Dens Axis). For a sagittal scan (L wiki) one has to search for the long protrusion backwards of C7 (Vertebra Prominence) or do search for the backwards sticking protrusion of C1 (Posterior Arch) and the one of C2 (Processes Spinosus).

In a frontal oral scan mainly C2 with the Dens Axis is prominently visible in view.

T 1

3rd Neck

Vvertebra C 3

Clavicula

Thorax 2

(6) Processus Transversus

Clavicula T 2

Intervertebral Disc

Examples needed to be used for comparing anatomy with the X-ray photo’s

15

Series B Image 1 (ZHS1H) The ZHS1 series contain old fashion made X-ray photo’s.)

Note: In ‘Medical FRAUD research part b+uk’ the images of the first two series are shown closer in close ups regarding the aspects of manipulation. After part B was written five years later a forensic research MRI and X-ray scan was performed in assignment. The neurologist involved wanted to claim his professional right of silence regarding and did not answer to the forensic questions being asked. Up following to that MRI research also X-ray manipulation was committed. The results of that forensic investigation are being treated in the epistle ‘Medical Research part C OMG’. Here we go further about the X-ray scan manipulations in mutual comparing of all these X-ray scans available together.

2x Posterior Arch

Do take notice of the nametag being scotched one over the other, where still a part is visible for observation. The double Posterior Arch of C1 is an undeniable proof of scan manipulation. The two Posterior Arches form together mirrored an ‘oval shape’; this certainly is not a natural situation. Also de Processes Spinoza of C2 is mirrored visible. The scan is handmade; the clip with the position-indication letter R is part of a scan being made by hand. This scan could be a printing-through of the CT-scan of December 2000 (ZHS0H_Ctdec2000). The vain clip on ZHS1H is showing different in size and shape from all the other X-ray scans being produced.

16

Series B Image 2 (ZHS1S)

On this scan we see no double posterior arch. The vainclip is shown outside the neck vertebrals. The position-indication letter ‘R’ is missing and the same nametag has been reused on this photo even including the scotch tape. Enlarged strongly we will see the digital marks visible at the topside of the image KN / MG - SP 08190762-1 13200309 and KN / MG – SP 08190762-1 13200308. What is the origin of these digital numbers on old fashion handmade scans? For a further detailed comparing I refer again to the Medical Research part B and part C OMG for further underpinning of obstruction with manipulation of X-ray scans.

C3

C7

(This scan result did not fit in a Duoscan so it was hung up to a thread with tape and photographed with light behind.

17

Series B Image 3 (ZHS1F)

Here the whole object is shown placed completely on C3 and does not touch the inter-vertebral disk between C2 and C3. This is in contradiction with the oral X-ray scan ZHS1O. The letter R is written by hand. In spite of the production by hand at the right side also here a digital notation is shown: KN / NG- SR 97490717 – 2 22207371 and a product mentioning type SR-REGULAR 007406 (negative). Again, see also Medical Research part B and C OMG.

C3

C7

T1

T2

Clavicula

18

Serie B Image 4 (ZHS1O)

Here the object touches fully the inter-vertebral disk visible between C2 and C3 (the second and third vertebral) and thus is placed a bit higher then on scan ZHS1F (see forgoing page). Above that: the clip is showing itself a little bit smaller proportionally in relation to the size of the neck vertebras. The digital ciphers KN / NG-SR 97490717-2 22207369 and KN / NG-SR

97490717-2 222073(7x) become visible when seen enlarged and fit with the series on scan ZHS1F (KN / NG- SR 97490717 – 2 22207371) but not to scan ZHS1S (KN / MG - SP 08190762-1 13200309 and KN / NG – SP 08190762-1 13200308), while all these scans were made one after another at once.

C2

C4

ZHS2F ZHS2O

ZHS1H

C3 C3 C3

The clip on the scan to the left is showing itself a little bit smaller then on the other saggital scan (middle). The rotation of the clip is not a logic result in view from a rotation of a person standing in frontal in of a X-ray scanner, a person is turning around a vertical axis, but the clip here is not purely rotated around a ‘vertical axis’. The clip on its side shown at right is showing little wires when being enlarged. (Animation mounting-material?)

19

Series B Image 5 (ZHS2S)

This scan also is carrying a hidden nametag underneath. On this scan a single C1 Posterior Arch is visible. This scan is made with more modern equipment, several digital marks are visible: enlarged above is the number 0007770400929 visible. To the left enlarged the brand name is visible in mirror with a running off serial number! The number (at the right)

0405986201YR6xy is not in mirror running away into the darker part. In spite of the modern technique we see a developer residue on the X-ray photo (circle). What is that vague form under the lower jaw? This scan would have been made on January 10 2008 at 13:48 hours.

C7

C1

C3

20

Serie B Image 6 (ZHS2O)

This scan of the German hospital carries even more clear traces of a hidden nametag underneath. This scan is according to the (scotched upon) nametag also made on January 1oth 2008 at 13:48 hours! That means that the frontal and the sagittal have been made within in one minute of time one after the other. A new world record !? This is practically impossible. On top we can find the number 0007770400928, the frontal scan was made first. The brand name Kodak (to the left) runs of in mirror, but the number to the right is ‘missing’ (covered) here.

C2

C4

T1

T2

21

Series B Image 7 (ZHS3H) Results of an explicit forensic question of investigation 2013.

On this scan ZHS3H we see an unnatural thick Posterior Arch C1, then on all saggittal scans from other series. Note: ZHS1H even showed a double Posterior Arch C1 but this one looks double as thick then normal. In Medical Research part C OMG scan ZHS3H will be compared enlarged with scan ZHS3S because of her comparable position of the body and size / position of the clip. Next to this the scan is also compared enlarged with scan ZHS1H and ZHS1F, and also with ZHS2S, whereby specifically is put attention to position of the clip and proportional dimensions of it in regard to the dimensions of the clip on both the scans and the size of the according vertebras and the position of the clip seen in relation to vertebral C2 / C3. In comparison with scans ZHS1H is still to be remarked that the spot lightning up in one of the molars from the lower jaw (right side) has gone. The vain clip is no cut out contour-spot.

Deviating C1 Posterior Arch

The clip being shown is like in other scans showing quiet some detail. This is however unusual, because metal is withholding X-ray radiation to an important extend. On local spots on the image of an X-ray-scan then –on that spot- no detailing is visible. The spot burns out into a ‘spot’ with contour lines. See the image to the right of neck-prosthesis. The more massive the metal, the stronger the cutting out and the contour lines of that spot created by withholding X-ray exposition...

22

Series B Image 8 (ZHS3S) Results of an explicit forensic question of investigation 2013.

Also because of the fully digital production of these X-ray photos in series ZHS3 the graphical quality is far better and are easier to be manipulated. But why are they still making such clumsy errors. To suggest that forgoing scans were correct in how they showed? I rather would study various images available (online) and in special the radiology study books for! Also scans ZHS3S is studied enlarged and concerning the clip proportionally (in relation to the surrounding vertebras qua size and qua location) compared with scans ZHS1S and ZHS1H and also with scans ZHS2S; see for this at Medical Research part C OMG.

C1

C2

C6

The Posterior Arch C1 here is shown double as on RX-scan ZHS1H. Did they wanted to suggest that deviations such as may appear more often? The Processes Spinoza of C2 is not fitting well at the vertebral body and is showing a kind of deviation with a cove (see arrow). The clip is showing a ‘wire’ at the end of the lower eye; and the surface of it is shown as detailed as on the other RX scans. The manipulation is done consequently..., yes, including the (earlier) being made mistakes. And with this a certain proof of spanning together and communication in obstructive handling in investigation has been proven with. The C6 sixth neck vertebral is showing a vertebral body being sagged in, which is a result of old age wear.

23

Series B Image 9 (ZHS3F) Results of an explicit forensic question of investigation 2013.

On this scan ZHS3F (even as on the other three ZHS3 scans) we see no overwritten nametags anymore, because these scans are manufactured fully within the digital domain. The first vertebral Atlas C1 lays as a ring upon C2 (Axis) and forms the turning joint for the skull on the vertebral column, where at the upward sticking part of the neck vertebral (Dens Axis C2) is sticking through the opening of C1 in service of the swivel joint of the head. Coming from the Dent Axis 32 pairs of nerves go further from the Spinal Canal towards the brains. The Inter-vertebral Discs mark the end of one vertebral and the beginning of the other vertebral is making a reliable starting point to compare the length of the vertebras. Unique deviating on this scan is the larger length of C3. Besides the (scotched upon) with little ‘wires’ well visible, the background looks a bit messy, certainly in comparison with the other vertebras shown on this scan. At the background we see at the height of the third neck vertebral C3 various image-disturbances. Can this be traces of the (underlying concealed) implanted object in the neck? In the epistle Medical Research part C OMG we go further in detail into that issue.

Dens Axis of vertebral C2

C1 C1

C2

Inter-Vertebral-Disk IVD

IVD

IVD

C3

C4

C5

C6

IVD

24

Series B Image 10 (ZHS3O) Results of an explicit forensic question of investigation 2013.

In the third Hospital (ZHS3) once more research was done in response to an explicit forensic research based upon forgoing researched being done. The Medical Research part B was written in 2008 and treated the manipulations found at that time by ZHS1 en ZHS2. While radiologic personnel (on a rather clumsy way) frustrated the digital X-ray RX-scan researches the neurological doctor wanted to claim his personal right of silence by profession concerning the request for the forensic investigation after the handlings were done in secret (long ago) and the cervical implant of metal in the neck, while before as an assignment for forensic investigation this was agreed. This oral scan ZHS3O is (different from usual) token with the mouth closed and rather few neck vertebrals are left visible on this scan. We see only C1 and C2 in complete. Around the up sticking part (Dens Axis) of the second vertebral also called as the Axis, this is well visible, the rest around seems a bit messy. The clip is shown for its major nearly completely on the inter-vertebral disc in between C2 and C3. Further there is not so much to remark on this scan in particular. Scan ZHS3O will be compared enlarged with ZHS3F, with scan ZHS1O and ZHS1F and with scan ZHS2O in part C.

25

Summary of rotation-research from Medical Research part C OMG So far the briefly summary of the manipulation of all the X-ray scans available in complete imaging of it. In this epistle it was shortly mentioned that it is impossible that a vainclip could have sagged down from inside the head towards inside the backsiode of the neck. Neither through the Spinal Canal, nor passing between the wrapping membrane layers at the inside of the skull and the skull bone if the clip would find itself outside the closed area of the brains. Under various forms of appearance the vain clip (by manipulation suggested to be in existence on the X-ray image material) in some cases clearly impossible anatomic situations were shown besides from the impossibility of the sagging down. In the epistle ‘Medical Research part B’ the first two series of manipulated X-ray scans were treated further in proofing. Up following (five years after in response to an explicit formulated demand for forensic investigation even a third series of manipulated X-ray photos were made for obstructing. These are treated further in the epistle ‘Medical Research part C OMG’ and also been brought into comparing with the other two series of X-ray scans being made before, which were shown in detail in the epistle ‘Medical Research part B’. In the Medical Research part C OMG also is gone further into the fact that there is no logical relation between the appearance of the clip at the frontal scan and the clip at the sagittal scan, where at a person first is standing with his back to the wall and on the other after standing with his right shoulder to the wall. The rotation of the person in these two position concerns a rotation around a vertical axis; the rotation the clip is showing is that however not. For convenience a minor summary is following now from that part of ‘Medical Research part C OMG’, wherein in a test setting the appearance of the vain clip is simulated visually under a rotation of 90 and is made visible to arrive at the finding of a deviation of rotation, where with again it becomes clear that we are dealing with a scan-manipulation, being an obstruction in the forensic research agreed after the actual implanted object. The true kind of the implant is not allowed to become known?

At right the clip of the saggittal scan, where at the broad sides of the legs of the clip are visible well. After rotation it looks as if we are looking at the small thin side of the clip, but we do not see parts of the broad sides back. It seems as if the clip has been put on it’s side (rotation around a horizontal axis).

F

F

F

F

?

R

R

R

L

L

L L

P

P ?

The spatial imagination ability is hindered by the vague representation of the clips, reason to imitate the situation approximately in a 3D test setting in order to arrive at conclusions.

P

R

26

After the clip approximately had been duplicated enlarged with the frontal scan as starting point, this was placed in a rotation system with a protractor. Herewith started the search for similar positions in images of the clip on the Frontal and the Sagittal scan, where at the camera was fixed in front of it to simulate an X-ray scanning-situation. Upfollowing with both situations as a starting point (see photo F2 and S2) as starting point. It was tested out if there was a visual relation in rotation of a 90, which has not been found. With a second camera for registration of the process I also made some photos from aside next to the first camera fixed. With that I discovered that there was another similar sight at the vain clip (F3 then looks like S1), but that situation does not fit with imitating an X-ray scan, because the photo’s has been taken under an angle of about 60 degrees from aside seen from the perpendicular line of position of the fixed test camera. The rotation of the clip appeared to be under a vertical axis of 60 and next to this it appeared also to be a rotation of 30 degrees around a horizontal axis needed to arrive at similar images at starting point. This made clear that an appearance and a rotation clockwise or counter-clockwise can make difference in approach, but the results remain the same. In not any situation of the test-setting a rotation of 90 around a vertical axis appeared to lead to related images, which means that the presentation of the clips is unreal. The full process of that research is also to be read in ‘Medical Research part C OMG.

F 1 F 3

F 2 S 2

S 1 S 3

27

Resuming: By MRI research it appeared that (in particular during the second operation) complete other handlings took place then was agreed before and afterwards being reported. According to the report there would have been acted in accordance with the agreement (cutting a hole inside the lower layer (Pia Mater) of the brain covering system of membranes on the left half of the backside of the head into the direction of the left Cysterna Magna. In stead of, after making a hole on the called left side of the head going underneath on the right side just over the middle there has been cut into the Falx Cerebelli and the Vene Sinus Rectus. There also has been implanted illegally into the neck, whereof the working and function and causal (intended) damage still is not investigated further yet. It did become clear that the implanted object caused damage to the third vertebral and the Spinal Canal, whereat the damage is been caused with and not being done by accident. The unexpected deep incision into the neck after the second treatment in itself alone is already an indication that handlings took place that deviates from what had been agreed. Hereafter upfollowing manipulations with imaging material took place for obstructing in investigation afterwards after the secret medical handlings in advance. Because directly after the operation Ct-scan manipulation took place for concealing, and with that obstruction in research in advance after, it is provable (because of the offender behaviour) that the implanting in spite of the denying sphere of the medical reports did take place during that second surgical treatment. Writings: The epistle ‘Medical Initiation UK’ came into excistence as first and is also a report of the lerning phase to be able to point out radiologic scans with the help of anatomic images. The epistle ‘Prestudy RX’ goes further in the underpinning of the impossibility of a vain clip sagging down from inside the head towards the backside halfway inside the neck. In the epistle ‘Findings and Positioning’ the parts ‘Medical Research part A and C OMG’ are being condensed. In the epistle ‘Case exposition’ (after an abridged exposition of findings from scan research) the case is recognized with selections from various Medical Rapports. In the epistle ‘Case Exposition II incl. Fraud redirected’ the parts ‘Medical Research part B and part C concerning the scan manipulations, that had been committed for obstruction of the investigation after the above called (secret) medical handlings and serves as a summary additional to the epistle ‘Positioning en Findings’. THE CASE IS PUT IN SHORT TO BE DEVIDED INTO TWO SUBJECTS:

1. The committed secret medical operations are damage causing of kind. 2. The obstruction of investigation after (the under point 1 to be called handlings) with

the use of forgery in medical reports and image-manipulations of scans afterwards. A doctor should at all times (even at the very last moment) be able to decide something else then was proposed to the patient. Is there no need for direct handling, then preferable the patient should be informed about that first, otherwise afterwards on a correct way information should be given about. Above that should the handlings stand in the interest and the wellbeing of the patient conform the medical oath and the repression of pathology. The handlings are damaging deviating from this: the alteration of the drainage system is not an answer to fight an invasive cyst. We speak about plural serious committed errors of ‘profession’ of blameable kind as described by (Dutch) criminal law.