Google is after you illegally
Yasmin Green, Google’s Jigsaw’s head of research and development, developed a way (The Redirect Method) to go after North American extremists (including white supremacists according to her press conference on the subject). Since you are considered to be a white supremacist group Google is going after you and it is illegal to do so under federal criminal law. I have written something that shows this and decided to include Google’s YouTube also because it takes down videos that it cannot legally take down and that is also a violation of federal criminal law. Please read the following for your group’s protection.
Google owes money to lots of people because it violated criminal law when it violated the legal rights of people using Google and YouTube. Below is something I wrote on this subject you should read because Google might owe you money because it might have misdirected you with its search engine or taken down a video in YouTube that was legal to put up or redirected you away from the video because it did not want people to see it. The writing begins with defining the Internet as a public forum and then shows that shopping places in the state of California (even on the Internet) have public forums according to state law because in public forums one has federal and state rights and when these rights are interfered with it is a criminal law violation. I go into detail the criminal law violation after defining public forums. I want this information spread all over the net in order that people get the money from Google that Google owes them for violating the rights of the people who use Google and YouTube. A copy of this writing went to a news group and I brought this matter before Google and got no response.
The US Supreme Court has various times stated that the governments of the US can create nontraditional public forums and two court cases that stated this are Perry Education Association v Perry Local Educators’ Association No. 81-896 (“A second category consists of public property which the State has opened for the public as a place for expressive activity. The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place.”) and Cornelius v NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund 473 US 788 105 S Ct 3439 87 L. Ed 2nd 567 (“The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.”). Cornelius v NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund also stated “Similarly, when the Government has intentionally designated a place or means of communication as a public forum, speakers cannot be excluded without a compelling governmental interest. “ This restriction according to the US Supreme Court cannot be an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view. The government must show that immediate danger to people’s lives or property can occur by allowing the person to express his views and not a future danger to people’s lives or property. This is the Clear and Present Danger doctrine of the US Constitution which is still the law on what free speech is allowed. The internet was created by state and federal governments to be a nontraditional public forum. The original ARPANET grew into the Internet. The first node on the ARPANET was on UCLA’s Network Measurement Center thus one has the state of California as one of the governments creating the Internet. The next node was at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) ( Brief History of the Internet by Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, and Stephnen Wolff). At the time SRI was part of Stanford University. SRI is now not part of Stanford University. Other nodes were added at UC Santa Barbara and the University of Utah. With the adding of the University of Utah one got other states involved in the development of the Internet. At this time the federal government was involved in the development of the Internet by way of taking the responsibility for designing and implementing the network proper (Darpa And The Internet Revolution by Mitch Waldrop). DARPA is short for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which was part of the US Department of Defense at the time the internet was being created. So one can see measures by which the federal government by way of the Department of Defense took an active role in the creation of the internet here. The National Science Foundation (NSF), which is another federal agency, saw the success of ARPANET and decided to set up its own network called CSNET which provided Internet services that included electronic mail and connections to ARPANET and by 1986 this network had more than 165 university, commercial and government groups connected (The Internet Changing the Way We Communicate by the National Science Foundation). This was the beginning of making the Internet a public forum. People began to exchange not only information by way of the Internet by also private communications on various subjects by way of emails. Next the NSF decided to create a more advance network which would connect to ARPANET and take over the CSNET connections. This was NSFNET. The NSF wanted a faster Internet with more connections which would include service to both the entire higher educational community regardless of discipline (a condition for universities to receive NSF funding for an Internet connection was that the connection must be made available to all qualified users on campus(Brief History of the Internet)) and private companies. As one can see the NSF wanted the Internet opened up to all people. Also university people used email to exchange information and that included views on politics (political science people) and religion (religious studies people). To continue the funding for the internet the NSF encouraged universities to find commercial places that would use NSFNET and pay for their use of it. This was turning over parts of the Internet to the public domain because once private companies got involved they began to create part of the networks and nodes used to exchange information. The NSF policy worked so well that that in 1995 the NSF defunded the NSFNET backbone (Brief History of the Internet). Thus you can see that the Internet was created to be a public forum by state and federal governments since it is a means of communication which vast numbers of people communicate to one another and that is what the federal and state governments wanted when creating the Internet.
Now the Internet has shopping centers on it and under Californian Constitutional law shopping centers, even if privately owned, are places where public forums can be found. The US Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v Robins 477 US 74 stated that when the California Supreme Court ruled “that the California Constitution protects “speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned . “ 23 Cal. 3d 899, 910 592 P. 2d 341,347” and decided that Article 1 sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution gave people the right to solicit signatures on private shopping center property because the solicitation of signatures was just the exercising the state rights of free expression and petition it was alright for the Supreme Court of state of California to rule that way because the state of California had the authority to adopt in its own constitutional individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution. Closely associated with the right of free speech is the right to association and because of this association if you have the right of free speech you also have the right of association. The US Supreme Court in NAACP v Alabama ex rel. Patterson 357 US 449 78 S. Ct. 1163 2L. Ed. 2d 1488 stated “Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. (Omitted case law cited here.) It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”
Since not all states allow for shopping centers to be places where public forums can be found and the US Supreme Court has stated that that is okay under US Constitutional law in the Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. V Robins case and cited its case Lloyd Corp. v Tanner 407 U. S. 551 as the reason why(“Lloyd held that, when a shopping center owner opens his private property for the purpose of shopping, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not thereby create individual rights in expression beyond those already existing under applicable law.”) I will comment on Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v Robins. A group of students wanted to solicit support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against “Zionism” so they decided to solicit signatures in a shopping center for a petition to be sent to the White House in Washington, D.C.. The shopping center asked them to leave because they did not have permission to do what they wanted to do and the students left the shopping center. The students sued the shopping center for violating their legal rights. Well this case involved both federal and state rights. The state is only allowed by law to define state rights since this state action and not federal rights. The job of the federal court system is to define federal rights which can be different than state rights. Well the California Constitution is different than lots of other state constitutions in that it states that the federal Constitution rights people have are found under state law. Footnote 2 of Robins v Pruneyard Shopping Center 23 Cal. 3d 899 (which the US Supreme Court ruled on as Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v Robins) the Supreme Court of California stated “Article III, section 1 of the California Constitution provides: ” The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.” The Supreme Court of California also stated “The duty of this court is to help determine what “liberty of speech” means in California. Federal principles are relevant but not conclusive so long as federal rights are protected.” In this case the court did exactly that. The students were asking people to petition the federal government and not the state government. The right to petition the federal government is a federal right. The US Supreme Court already ruled that the right to express the freedom of speech and petition the government on private areas is not a federal right because these areas were not areas of public forums. The Supreme Court of California decided that because of the conditions of modern society that shopping centers have areas which can be viewed as public forums due to article 1 (sections 2 and 3) of the California Constitution and the US Supreme Court agreed that the state of California had the right under state law to create new public forums as was done in this case. Thus the state of California by way of a court ruling by the Supreme Court of California created a new public forum in the state of California in which one could use both state and federal rights in the areas of free speech and the right to petition the state and federal governments and thus protected the federal rights of the students.
Since I will be mentioning how the Internet can be viewed as a shopping center I will show you what areas of a shopping center are considered to be public forums under Californian law as stated by the Supreme Court of California. I will be using Ralphs Grocery Company v United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 S185544 as my guideline because the Supreme Court of California agreed with decisions of intermediate appellate courts (Albertson’s, Inc. v Young 107 Cal.App.4th 106 and Van v Target Corp. 155 Cal.App.4th 1375) as to what areas in a shopping center are to be public forums in that case and because one can use the reasoning stated by the Supreme Court of California to go after Google (Youtube and Chrome) in the state of California for violating your rights under Californian law. The Supreme Court of California stated “We agree with these intermediate appellate decisions that to be a public forum under our state Constitution’s liberty-of-speech provision, an area within a shopping center must be designed and furnished in a way that induces shoppers to congregate for purposes of entertainment, relaxation, or conversation, and not merely to walk to or from a parking area, or to walk from one store to another, or to view a store’s merchandise and advertising displays.” and “On the private property of a shopping center, the public forum portion is limited to those areas that have been designed and furnished to permit and encourage the public to congregate and socialize at leisure.”
Now since I am dealing with state and federal issues I should state that the Internet is covered under the commerce clause of the US Constitution (Section 8 of article 1 where it states that Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”) due to the fact you have data transported over it from one state to another state and from one state to foreign nations. The US Supreme Court case I will be using to show where states have power over the Internet and the restrictions on that power because of the commerce clause is Coe v Town of Errol 116 US 517 (6 S. Ct. 475, 29 L. Ed. 715). I am using this case because the court clearly defines the state power in areas of commerce. In this case the Supreme Court stated that until an item has entered a common carrier for transportation which is going to be ship to another state (destination clearly marked as going to another state and not just being moved around in the state), has started upon such transportation in a continuous route or journey or has been shipped the item is under state control. The key here is that the item must be clearly marked as going to another state and it has begun its movement to another state. The Supreme Court in this case stated that the destination of the item must be fixed and certain that it is going to another state. If the item does not leave the state then the item is under state control. Any preliminary work on the item which makes the item ready for transport is under state control. As you can see data being sent on the Internet from one state to another state or country once its destination has been clearly marked as going outside of the state is under federal control. The common carrier for the data is the internet. The internet user when he asks for the data (audio, pics, video or text) to be downloaded or viewed or played (audio files) has begun the movement of the data and this data is only under state control as long as the person lives and is staying in the state where the data is stored. If the data is found in a different state or country than the internet user is located in the data is no longer under state control but is under federal control. Now this gets more interesting since people are on the move when they use the Internet and they can be traveling from one state to another state or country when they are on the Internet. A good example of this is someone on a bus which goes from one state to another state. The person on the bus uses his or her phone or lab top computer to go on the Internet while on the bus. The bus begins its trip in one state and then moves across state lines into another state. The whole time this happens the person is on the Internet and since the data on the phone or lab top computer moves across state lines you have the commerce clause now involved for that information coming from the Internet. The data can be down loaded as one passes state lines. The size of the data, the connection type and the amount of traffic on the Internet at the time of down loading determines how long it takes to down load something. One can begin the down loading in one state and have it finish in another state and also that person could pass though a state while going to the state where the trip is ending. People sometimes pass though part of one or more states when travelling to their destination state. For my cell phone it takes sometimes ten or fifteen minutes to down load a six or seven megabit audio file from an Internet site that I use to learn another language. Video files are a lot larger and can take a lot longer amount of time to down load. As you can see in modern society with cell phones it is easy to show that simply by having people move around the Internet is under federal control due to the commerce clause. The person who is down loading the data is the one who knowns where the ending point of his travel will be and not the Internet site where the data is coming from. That person is the one committing the data to a clearly marked place of destination for the data due to the fact the person has a ticket which states where the person is going. Also if the person is a passenger in a car, truck, or etc. where he or she is not playing for the trip going though states and he or she has a reservation in a place in another state the data is clearly marked as going to another state because that person is going to another state.
The movement of people when viewing or down loading data from the Internet brings Google into trouble under law. Google takes down YouTube videos due to a state court order or does not allow it to be played in an area or at all. Well states have different laws and what is not allowed in one state might be allowed in another state (good examples here are: 1) California allows for shopping centers to have public forums while other states do not allow for shopping centers to have public forums and 2) the legal ages to buy tobacco and intoxicating liquors vary from state to state). A person travelling begins to down load something in a state that allows for the item to be viewed, heard or read and then goes into another state that forbids it due to law or court order as part of his or her trip which will end in another place (might only spend a short period of time in that state) and is denied the data he or she is down loading off of the Internet when in the state where the court order is in effect. That is illegal and a criminal act has now occurred. The state court order does not apply here. The data was in interstate commerce since the person was moving though the state and his final destination was clearly marked and thus the data’s final destination was clearly marked as not being in the state. Only federal court orders apply here since the federal government is in control of interstate commerce.
Google’s Chrome and YouTube both have problems because the Internet is a public forum in the state of California because both Google’s Chrome and YouTube can both be viewed as shopping centers. Google has to have in the state of California a permit or license to sell things in the state of California. Google also pays money to the state of California based upon the revenue of sells done in the state of California. Google’s Chrome is used for retail. People use it for shopping. Companies and people pay Google to have their items and ads listed and what position the items and ads are located in the search results. If a person hits on the ad or listing they are taken to a net store where they can buy the item. Thus Chrome is used an entrance to a store (portal) on the Internet. Google also gets money when an item is sold (Chrome mentions this when listing items and only if one hits the sponsored i for information does it mention that Google gets compensation when the item is sold). Information of money that Google makes from Chrome can be found in Alphabet, Inc.’s United States Securities and Exchange Commission reports. Once YouTube began to sell things and allowed people to sell things in their channels YouTube became a shopping center. When viewing YouTube videos one gets ads for stuff such as concert tickets, merchandise that has the group or performer on and how to buy songs or albums by the performer or other ads which when one clicks on one goes to a store to get the stuff thus one goes to a store by simply clipping on an ad and thus YouTube is an entrance to various commercial places . Now people have YouTube channels and sell stuff off of their channels to make money and Google due to YouTube contracts gets money from these sells. Some of the stuff these people sell are items with their YouTube channel displays on. This is the way people make money off of YouTube by their YouTube channel. Google gets money in various ways when people click to go to these places and buy stuff and the money from these sells is reported in the Securities and Exchange Commission reports of Google. Now YouTube is a place where people go to congregate for entertainment and have written conversations with others. People go there to watch videos and write comments on what they watched. Other people who watched the same video make comments on the comments made by other people so one gets a written conversation here. Since people watch the same channel they comment on videos to one another in the comment section of the videos about the videos put up in the channel. Thus YouTube video and comment sections are the public forum areas of a shopping center according to Californian law.
Now Google interferes with peoples search results when people use Google’s Chrome and that is a violation of federal criminal civil rights law which later on in this writing I will go into detail. A good example of how Google interferes with search results has to do with Google’s Jigsaw’s The Redirect Method. The head of Jigsaw’s research and development, Yasmin Green, gave a press conference on the subject in 2016 (called Google’s Clever Plan To Stop Aspiring ISIS Recruits in news reports) which was mentioned in the world wide news so my information on this subject comes directly from Google. In fact I have downloaded the printed material on this subject from Google (I have a print out of Google’s The Redirect Method A Blueprint For Bypassing Extremism). Yasmin Green thought it was a good idea that when people search for ISIS related terms using Google that Google should direct them away from pro-ISIS websites and direct them toward informational websites, anti-ISIS testimonials, and fact-filled YouTube videos that expose the hypocrisy and false ideology of the Islamic State movement. This is a violation of federal criminal law in the US and criminal law elsewhere due to the fact than not only in the US but elsewhere people have the right to free speech and association due to their constitutional laws. I will just deal with the issue under US law here and later on I will deal with it in other countries. The Internet is a public forum under federal law due to fact that the federal government designed it to be that way when creating the Internet and using it for people to approach their governments at all levels of government. One is encouraged by the various governments to use the Internet to write to various elected members of government at the local, state and federal levels by use of the Internet (emails or internal web mail found on governmental sites). The US Constitutional rights that Google is interfering with are the rights of free speech and association. Google’s redirection is denying people these rights.
When I went to San Jose State Univeristy and elsewhere I had to study the civil and criminal aspects of people violating the US Constitutional rights of others. For example at SJSU I had History 171 (Development of the American Constitution) and one of the texts for the course was The Supreme Court in Crisis A History of Conflict by J. Steamer stated the criminal aspects of violating the US Constitutional rights of other people. The text mentioned Screws v United States 325 US 91 and United States v Classic 313 US 299. I wrote to Google’s legal department and mentioned these cases plus others and explained how Google not only violated my federal rights but the rights of others. I used certified mail with a return receipt and according to the USPS Google’s legal department got my letter January 9, 2017 at 11:00 am.. I got no reply from Google so I decided to write this. No reply is a reply of go to hell.
United States v Classic 313 US 299 shows what Google is doing with The Redirect Method is in violation of criminal law. In the Redirect Method Google is altering and falsifying what people are looking for with the search engine which is the association with an extremist group. In United States v Classic the US Supreme Court stated that one could not alter or falsify a constitutional right (altering or falsifying a ballot). What Google is doing with The Redirect Method is altering and falsifying a constitutional right and thus Google is violating US criminal law. Since Google came up with it’s The Redirect Method with other companies (Moonshot CVE, Quantum Communications and Valens Global) one has a conspiracy here.
Google violates with the Redirect Method section 241 of USC number 18. It is against the law to interfere with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the US federal Constitution or any of the laws of the US. The right of association the US Supreme Court has already ruled is a US federal constitutional right (NAACP v Alabama ex rel. Patterson 357 US 449 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1488). Association with radical groups who want a violent overthrowing of the US government is protected under US constitutional law. To prove my point I am going to use a few US Supreme Court rulings dealing with Section 2385 of USC number 18 which makes it a crime for advocating the forceful or violent overthrow of the US government. The first case is Scales v United States 367 US 203 81 S. Ct. 1469 6L. Ed. 2d 782. A quotation from Scales v United States which proves my point is “A member, as distinguished from a conspirator, may indicate his approval of a criminal enterprise by the very fact of his membership without thereby necessarily committing himself to further it by any act or course of conduct whatever. 44 In an area of the criminal law which this Court has indicated more than once demands its watchful scrutiny (omitted the cited case law) these factors have weight 20 and must be found to be overborne in a total constitutional assessment of the statue. We think, however, they are duly met when the statute is found to reach only ‘active` members having also a guilty knowledge and intent, and which therefore prevents a conviction on what otherwise might be regarded as merely an expression of sympathy with the alleged criminal enterprise, unaccompanied by any significant action in its support or any commitment to undertake such action.” The next case I will quote from is Noto v United States 367 US 290 and the word element refers to the requisite criminal intent. The US Supreme Court stated in Noto v United States “But it should also be said that this element of the membership crime, like its others must be judged Strictissimi juris, for otherwise there is a danger that one in sympathy with the legitimate aims of such an organization, but not specifically intending to accomplish them by resort to violence, might be punished for his adherence to lawful and constitutionally Page 367 US 300 protected purposes because of other and unprotected purposes which he does not necessarily share.”
Now the US Supreme Court has already ruled that people who associate with members of groups that go after the national security of the US by violent means can sue if their rights are violated when associating with a terroristic group member (Mitchell v Forsyth 472 US 511). Forsyth lost because at the time of the illegal activity it had not been determined by the US Supreme Court that the illegal activity was illegal. This case came out because of the court case that stated it was illegal to do that activity (United States v United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan No. 70-153 407 US 297).
Now the US federal government cannot even give Google permission to do what it is doing because of statue 18 USC Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law). United States v Price 383 US 787 and Dennis v Sparks 449 US 24 are the cases which show that people acting with agents of the government to deprive people of their rights can be found in violation of the law.
Now a pardon will not stop people from getting money from Google. The US Supreme Court stated in Knote v United States 95 US 149 “Neither does the pardon affect any rights which have vested in others directly by the execution of the judgment for the offence, or which have been acquired by others whilst that judgment was in force.” Also a pardon can only be given out when a criminal law has been violated.
To go after the federal murder law (18 US Code section 1111 (a)) and USC 18 section 241 one must use the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v Sharpe 347 US 497) where the US Supreme Court stated that equal protection of the law is found in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The murder has problems since the federal government wants people to die of heart attacks from eating fish. People with heart problems are encouraged to eat fish when they should stay away from fish. The federal government’s position can be found in the letter written by the then head of the FDA which was used in The People v Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC. which was a Californian fish case which the state got involved in order to lose because if the case was won the state of California could be sued for violating the state created danger doctrine of the 14th Amendment because California is one of the greatest releasers of mercury in the world. I have a couple of fully state created danger doctrine writings on this subject and show that one can find both science errors known at the time in the case as well as law errors. I would love to get this into court so please read the short writing below and think about people in prison or jail for violating the above federal laws. I need one of these people to get this into the court system. I also have a writing that deals with USC 18 section 241/242 and the last president we had since he violated it and nobody cared.
I think I should add here how the federal and states governments along with the American Heart Association cause people to die of heart attacks since one of the reasons I wrote to Google was to get the below information out. I wanted Google to put up the information high in its search engine. The governments and the American Heart Association state that eating fish is good for your heart when in fact eating fish causes heart attacks due to the fact fish contain various species of mercury which can cause heart attacks. The major species of mercury in fish is methyl mercury and this one along can cause heart attacks. Mercury causes the destruction of heart tissue, heart attacks and other heart problems. This is due to the fact that mercury causes cells to have increased levels of reactive oxygen species. The two major ways this happens are: 1) mercury reacts with oxygen and causes reactive oxygen species and 2) mercury is a mitochondrial poison (anything that destroys the mitochondria causes the release of reactive oxygen species from the mitochondria and items from the mitochondria which are used in normal cellular death). Reactive oxygen species causes the cellular death genes to be turned on (c-fos and c-jun) and thus one can get cellular death. I have shown both the federal government (Sam Farr) and Safeway, Inc. science papers dealing with this subject and they have both told me to go to hell. In fact an environment group also brought this fact up to Safeway, Inc. in 2005 and Safeway, Inc. still sells fish items which state on them that eating fish is good for your heart . Safeway, Inc. adds for 2017 show this. I have stuff from 2005 to 2017 that shows Safeway, Inc. either mentioned fish is good for your heart or sells products which mentions that the product is good for your on the outside of the fish product (ads by Safeway, Inc. show the area on the product that states this). If you have heart problems you should not eat fish but the US government and the Safeway, Inc. state otherwise thus you have the poisoning of these people. I have let out on the net a few full state created danger doctrine writings on this subject with how the murder law is illegal due to the equal protection of the law violation here which is very easy to understand (Copies of these writings were given to news places as cc or bc at the time of being released). When a death occurs during an illegal activity (putting false information on a fish item stating that the item is good for your heart) you have a violation of the murder laws all over the US and the 14th Amendment requires that all people who violated a law must be prosecuted or given some kind treatment that shows that they violated the law or the law is invalid. Various criminal laws have been taken out because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Here are a few US Supreme Court cases where the US Supreme Court found criminal laws invalid due to violations of the equal protection clause of the US Federal Constitution: 1) Craig v Boren 429 US 190, 2) Eisenstadt v Baird 405 US 438, 3) Loving v Virginia 388 US 1 and 4) McLaughlin v Florida 379 US 184. Here are a listing of a few science papers that back up my statement that mercury causes heart problems and heart attacks. The papers released on the net contain more ways mercury items cause heart attacks and the way without mercury causes heart attacks. 1) Unusual Case of Mercury Poisoning British Medical Journal 340-341. One finds the death of human heart tissue due to mercury poisoning in this paper. Methyl mercury becomes the type of mercury that this form of mercury becomes in the body due to reactive oxygen. 2) The Effects of Methylmercury on Isolated Cardiac Tissues American Journal of Pathology 95:753-764. Both the federal government and the American Heart Association paid for the research of this 1979 paper that shows myofibrillary degeneration, mitochondrial problems and that methyl mercury has an effect on the muscles of the heart. Anything that causes irregular heart beating can cause heart attacks. 3) Accidental ethyl mercury poisoning with nervous system, skeletal muscle, and mycocardium injury Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 43:143-149. People here died of heart attacks due to ethyl mercury. Methyl and ethyl mercuries are related and can become the other one in the human body (methyl group not added to mercury but added to another methyl group or the lost of a methyl group due to reaction oxygen species). 4) MEKK1 suppresses oxidative stress-induced apoptosis of embryonic stem cell-derived cardiac myocytes PNAS vol. 96 no. 26 pages 15127-15132. Reactive oxygen species reacts with water to produce H2O2 which can be use to kill heart cells. 5) Mercury chloride activates c-Jun N-terminal kinase and induces c-jun expression in LLC-PK1 cells Toxicological Sciences 53:361-368. Death gene turned on by mercury chloride which is related to methyl mercury chloride which is one of the species of mercury found in fish. Reaction oxygen species causes methyl mercury chloride to lose its methyl group and become mercury chloride in the human body. 6) Mercury, Fish Oils, and Risk of Acute Coronary Events and Cardiovascular Disease, Coronary Heart Disease, and All-Cause Mortality in Men in Eastern Finland Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 25:228-233. A population study that was published in a journal published by the American Heart Association which states that since mercury promotes the formation of free radicals one can get heart attacks from eating fish. 7) Intake of Mercury From Fish, Lipid Peroxidation, and the Risk of Mycocardial Infarction and Coronary, Cardiovascular, and Any Death in Eastern Finnish Men Circulation 91:645-655. Another population study published by the American Heart Association which the authors state that heart problems were caused by mercury causing oxygen radicals to be formed in the cell.
Thank you for reading this,
Marcus Horton 60 Stephanie Dr. apt 213A Salinas, Ca. 93901