Baby Gard’s death is state-endorsed eugenics

Baby Gard’s death in my view amounts to state-endorsed eugenics.
The European Convention on Human Rights provides that the death penalty can be legal, providing it is made by the order of a court. In my view the UK courts have enacted this right by ordering the killing of Baby Gard without his parents’ consent.
My living will says that I wish to continue my EEG research should I ever be dependent on life support like Baby Gard was. It says I should stay on it until it is possible for me to be a candidate for cryonics.
Why should the parents of Baby Gard not have had the same right to decide his future, such as for him to take part in an experimental treatment which even if it was ineffective, would have helped advance science in a small way like I want to happen with me in the same situation?
The judicial killers of Baby Gard would likely have ruled that an adult who wanted to end their life by choice should not be assisted by doctors or anyone else. So why did the courts assist the killing of Baby Gard against his parents’ wishes?

SallyAnn Wakeford not the first

I read an article on the Daily Mail website claiming that a researcher, SallyAnn Wakeford, is the first person to make a link between epilepsy and autistic traits. SallyAnn Wakeford is not very novel in this finding. .

In 2011 I presented a poster to a conference in Wrexham on the EEG patterns.  SallyAnn Wakeford is not saying anything that I did not know. So the article in the Daily Mail saying SallyAnn Wakeford is the first to make the link is flawed.

By 2012 I had a paper published in conference proceedings that provided a basis for calculating how the changes in dopamine and serotonin can effect EEG patterns and a system for helping vary these to avoid undesirable EEG activity.

I hope SallyAnn Wakeford will be acknowledging my contribution in any future work. I am attending a conference in London this weekend presenting the latest research I have done using this. If SallyAnn Wakeford is attending she can speak to me about my prior art, which includes a patent registered in 2010 which clearly shows the links between EEG, affect and behaviour change.

Frank Duffy and Tom Hodder – IP Thieves?

In 2011 I presented a poster to a conference in Wrexham on my research into EEG and autism and how it was possible to determine if someone was autistic from their brain-patterns. This is based on a patent I filed in 2010 which is for a device that uses EEG signals to read people’s brain patters and recommend appropriate behaviour.

A year later a researcher called Frank Duffy had a paper published in BMC Medicine titled, “A stable pattern of EEG spectral coherence distinguishes children with autism from neuro-typical controls – a large case control study.”

Even though I told the journal he was replicating work I had done, they did nothing to right the wrong of Frank Duffy not crediting me for the work of mine that he replicated. By Frank a Duffy copying my work without crediting it that makes Frank Duffy a plagiarist. Does Frank Duffy think it is fair that he is doing this?

Earlier this year someone called Tom Hodder placed a job request on PeoplePerHour asking people to present research of patents and EEG research that would effect his use of EEG in motorbike helmets.

When I notified Tom Hodder of my patent and research he wrote two blog posts. One called “patent troll or just troll? I have definitely been trolled.” and another “irrealis mood as an excuse to talk bollocks“.

In these blog posts Tom Hodder admits my patent is similar to the idea he wanted to take to market. Instead of saying how he wishes he thought of it first, Tom Hodder critiques my writing style and my various identities. Tom Hodder like Frank Duffy might not be as clear as they thought they were. In both cases I should be paid royalties if either uses my IP to assist interaction between people.