Lonelygirl15

Here's a still of the page she showed us





9/11/06 is the day after the House arrest video, the first one in which Bree has a bandage on her arm.

10/30/06 is the date of the Thanks Gemma video.

Right after that, she decides not to do the ceremony and her parents talk to the Deacon. We can assume the injections stopped at that time.

Any thoughts?

My guess is Wyman Foundation are "good guys" trying to help Bree become trait negative.

someone in another post said "wymen" reminded her of this kind of spelling for "women" which goes back to the order's matriarchal leanings...

So we can assume that W.F. are the good guys. They have charted Bree's levels over time and were successful in bringing them down (if we assume thats what the chart is).

What I wonder is how low does Bree need to be to be considered negative? If they had her all the way down to 85, that seems pretty low to me. Does negative = 0?

Also, if we assume that after Bree stopped taking these injections her levels went back up, then the question is can Bree EVER really be "negative" or can her levels just be brought down with medications?

For all we know brees dad may of been stealing from the company or doing it behind the orders back.

I dont see why brees dad coulnt of potentionaly lied about what he was useing epogen for. He go his supply. And he could of lied about who the subject of those result were. Sort of useing the labs for personal use instead of the job.

A good example would be one of those csi episodes where they have been relived from durty for some reason. And then they go and use the labs resources to do their own snooping and research without anyone knowing.

Nieriel.Manwathiel wrote:someone in another post said "wymen" reminded her of this kind of spelling for "women" which goes back to the order's matriarchal leanings...

Actually, if one is going with the liberated or technically matriarchal spelling, it would be womyn, keeping the "wom" portion for "womb," but replacing the "a" or "e" with "y" to, according to dictionary definitions "avoid the suggestion of sexism perceived in the sequence[s]"... of "m-a-n" or "m-e-n"...

Sorry, child of the '60's...child of the movement... <smile>

chershaytoute wrote:

Nieriel.Manwathiel wrote:someone in another post said "wymen" reminded her of this kind of spelling for "women" which goes back to the order's matriarchal leanings...

Actually, if one is going with the liberated or technically matriarchal spelling, it would be womyn, keeping the "wom" portion for "womb," but replacing the "a" or "e" with "y" to, according to dictionary definitions "avoid the suggestion of sexism perceived in the sequence[s]"... of "m-a-n" or "m-e-n"...

Sorry, child of the '60's...child of the movement... <smile>

actually, i was taught that the "man" in woman should be replaced with person, and the "son" (also a male word for a child) should be replaced with child, giving you...

woperchild

ok, that joke probably dates from the 60s too.

Maybe it has something to do with getting children without needing a men. The name Wymen, looks like why men. Maybe they "forget" the h in why intentionally.

I thought I've read something in the forum a while ago that the HoO could be about creating some kind of method that women don't need a men for getting a baby anymore, so that's why I had this thought. Maybe it's just a stupid thought....

In the Wyman Foundation page it talks about bioinformatics. I wikied it and came up with this:

Bioinformatics involve the use of techniques including applied mathematics, ... and biochemistry to solve biological problems usually on the molecular level. Major research efforts in the field include sequence alignment, gene finding, genome assembly, protein structure alignment, protein structure prediction, prediction of gene expression and protein-protein interactions, and the modeling of evolution.

We're back to the gene slicing stuff again.

bianca23 wrote:Maybe it has something to do with getting children without needing a men. The name Wymen, looks like why men. Maybe they "forget" the h in why intentionally.

I thought I've read something in the forum a while ago that the HoO could be about creating some kind of method that women don't need a men for getting a baby anymore, so that's why I had this thought. Maybe it's just a stupid thought....

This is a really interesting theory. It would bring a lot of insight into why The Order is trying so hard to keep Bree away from Daniel and Jonas. For her to develop feelings for one of them would hinder what they are trying to do.

Okay this is going to take a bit, I'm going to post anything I have found/seen that I have saved and been looking at.. For one is the graph I don't have to post since Impulse had that as the 1st post.. But the paper that they found in his parents cabin, look at the initials..



Then whenever he got to his aunts he made a video after he was in the office talking about how his parents were opening up some kind of foundation when he was a kid..

Okay moving on someone else found some links to a scientist named Robert Wyman.. Here are those two links..

http://www.biology.yale.edu/facultystaff/wyman.html

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/530

And with the graph I'm thinking since her dad was giving her shots to try to make her trait negative, that he was letting the Wyman Foundation maybe check her out and they made the graph for her dad, showing how her trait +ness was dropping in levels..

Also on top of just running tests on her to show her dad her levels dropping they could have also been the ones to develop whatever her dad was injecting her with.. The stuff that was making her levels drop..

I dont think this means they are the good guys, not definetely at least....all it means is that the wyman foundations knew the levels were getting lower (if that is what they were documenting)...it could be that they found out what Brees dad was doing and they were trying to document that.

I doubt Dr. Robert Wyman has anything to do with the Breeniverse. We need to stick to the Wyman foundation, with which Dr. Wyman has no connection.

impulse wrote:Here's a still of the page she showed us





9/11/06 is the day after the House arrest video, the first one in which Bree has a bandage on her arm.

10/30/06 is the date of the Thanks Gemma video.

Right after that, she decides not to do the ceremony and her parents talk to the Deacon. We can assume the injections stopped at that time.

Any thoughts?

Impulse, I think you are on to something with the dates. I won't say that I know for sure what this depicts, because some information is missing, but I read a lot of figures/ graphs.

9/11 - Bree starts getting injections, levels are high, comparitively. We don't know levels of what, or what the thresholds are for positive and negative. (you could assume that they would discontinue or hold treatment steady once they acheived the desired result)

The levels drop steadily over regular periods of time, the last bar is at 85.

The part that is really important is that it says Trait: +/85. (date is 11/1).

Whatever they were doing, she was trait positive at the end of the testing. Levels dropping aren't necessarily going negative - positive could be to have low levels of something.

This begs the question - low levels of WHAT are important?