Saturday, September 09, 2006

Dr. Vic Wulsin: Ethically Challenged? Part I

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

When asked about her involvement in the Heimlich Institute’s “malariotherapy” experiments—in which patients suffering from AIDS are deliberately infected with malaria parasites—Congressional candidate Dr. Vic Wulsin claims the idea is not one she supports. “I did a literature review, and determined that there was no evidence to show that it was effective or helpful,” says Wulsin. “It’s not something that I think has any scientific validity.”

Fair enough. Such an answer puts Dr. Wulsin in the company of leading immunologists and bioethicists who for decades have been criticizing Heimlich’s ethics as well as his medical expertise. Unfortunately for Wulsin, however, her statements don’t match what she wrote in her report on malariotherapy to the Heimlich Institute.  Seems Wulsin might be “ethically challenged.” No wonder she doesn’t like sharing the report:  it calls her to task for her misinformation campaign!

But before we get more specifically to Dr. Wulsin, here is some history for those of you who don’t know the details of malariotherapy.

Brief History

Dr. Henry Heimlich has no background in immunology and hasn’t held a hospital job since the 1970s, when he abruptly left Jewish Hospital for reasons that remain murky. But that didn’t stop him from trying to push for quackery!

Beginning in the early 1980s, when the Heimlich Institute was at Xavier University, he started claiming that infecting patients with malaria cures not only AIDS, but also Lyme disease and cancer. His offshore human experiments in Mexico and China have been the subject of numerous media investigations. Now Heimlich has moved his malaria roadshow to Africa.  Here’s an excerpt from Tom Francis’s Radar Magazine article:

A car rental agent is Heimlich’s “research director”? That seems like one reason Dr. Wulsin might not be entirely enthusiastic about Heimlich’s project. An ethical doctor might even be compelled to blow the whistle on Heimlich. 

Not Dr. Wulsin. 

Dr. Vic Wulsin:  Ethically Challenged?

Though Wulsin currently says malariotherapy has “no scientific validity,” she has refused to share the report which would substantiate her claims.  For months, she and her campaign people have promised to give me a copy but they never quite get around to it.

However, thanks to the redoubtable Robert Baratz, MD, PhD, DDS, and president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, The Cincinnati Beacon now has a copy of her report, which we’ll be examining in the coming weeks. The report Dr. Wulsin wrote doesn’t match what she’s been saying about it.

For example, Dr. Wulsin said she was hired by the Heimlich Institute to conduct “a literature review.” The first paragraph of her report shows there was much more to it.

Wow, Dr. Wulsin wasn’t just writing a literature review, she was conducting market research! Turns out that infecting AIDS victims with malaria isn’t a crackpot theory after all. According to Dr. Wulsin, a career public health professional with a Harvard pedigree, it’s a “market niche”! In other words, infecting third world AIDS patients with malaria is a product to be marketed.

Mark Harrington, director of the international AIDS activist organization, Treatment Action Group, shared a slightly different opinion with Reuters: “If Heimlich is really doing this, he should be put in jail.” Dr. Baratz has repeatedly voiced similar concerns, comparing “malariotherapy” to Nazi-era medicine. He told the UCLA Bruin in 2003 that it has no basis in scientific fact, and is better referred to as lunacy.

Then there’s the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectionus Disease who in 1994 told the following to the Los Angeles Times: “Heimlich’s life-saving maneuver for people who aspirate food doesn’t qualify one as an HIV expert,” said leading AIDS researcher Dr. Anthony Fauci, who called malaria therapy “quite dangerous and scientifically unsound.”

But back to Dr. Vic’s marketing analysis, which reads like a corporation’s annual report:

Dr. Vic, who knew you were such a marketing whiz? The name change alone is a stroke of branding genius. “Malariotherapy” has become radioactive because of Heimlich’s years of bad press for his atrocity experiments.  But “Immunotherapy”?  Very high tech, futuristic, with plenty of curative zing. Best of all, it removes any hint that you’re infecting people with malaria.

If only you’d been around to write a government report for the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment. It might have read something like, “Recommendations vis-a-vis witholding penicillin from victims: rename syphilis experiment as ‘Spirochete Syndrome Therapy.’”

So contrary to your public claims that you renounced Heimlich’s disgusting experiments, the truth is that you worked up a marketing plan for him.

Dr. Vic, I don’t have your credentials or expertise, but here’s some “brainstorming” you might want to consider passing along to the Heimlich Institute’s board of directors and “all the major stakeholders involved in the organization.” It might really improve the “high-quality personnel” side of “the sustainability pyramid.”

Get rid of the car rental guy.

-----
Read ”Ethically Challenged, Part Two:  Looking for Wulsin’s Silver Lining”

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

TrueSeeker says:
09 Sep 2006  at  12:05 pm | #

Just Tell The Truth. For Gawd sake- we already have one woman who can’t. So Dr. Vic- just TELL THE TRUTH. IT’S ALL OUT THERE UNDER FIOA. SO JUST TELL THE TRUTH. BE A HERO- Not one of the Heimlich cronies.

f says:
09 Sep 2006  at  01:01 pm | #

before we hang the woman was this her background and proposal she did before the literature review?

often when you are asked to consult on a project you will submit your proposal where you will list everything you could possible plan on doing with the product (yes i am calling immunotherapy a product in this case).  you always have the opportunity to withdraw later if you choose to as a proposal isn’t binding

perhaps the literature review didnt go well and she pulled out after that.  From the article written i am unsure if this is what happened or not.  any chance we can get all the facts before passing judgement?

anon says:
09 Sep 2006  at  01:55 pm | #

f: any chance we can get all the facts before passing judgement?

Jump in, f for facts. Do you really want to know them? This is from the real report.

Wulsin got paid $10,000/month by Heimlich. That’s not chump change, even for an MD. A report hyping Heimlich’s discredited hokum doesn’t come cheap.

Ask her. And ask her how many months she got paid. Ask Phil Heimlich, the VP of the Heimlich Institute, who paid Wulsin.

Dr. Wulsin: (513)233-4180
Phil Heimlich: (513) 871-6758

Go for it, f!

says:
09 Sep 2006  at  01:57 pm | #

The quotations come from the draft as sourced to me by Dr. Baratz of NCAHF.  This is the draft she claims she submitted to the Institute, and then got fired the next day.

anony says:
09 Sep 2006  at  02:25 pm | #

Wulsin’s “literature review” claim is puzzling because almost no literature on malariatherapy exists. There’s almost nothing in medical journals because malariatherapy has been discredited since the 1920s.

Before antibiotics, malariatherapy was a primitive, but unproven experimental treatment for advanced syphilis. After the invention of modern drugs, malariatherapy was cast on the rubbish heap of failed medical theories. Subsequent modern analysis of the 1920s malariatherapy treatments found that it had no merit for treating syphilis.

Most of what’s been published about malariatherapy since then has been in the popular press. These articles consist primarily of criticism of Henry Heimlich’s illicit human experiments in Mexico and China and his medical ethics.

Given that there are so few journal articles, one might ask why “a literature review” of these few articles would require several months work.

On the other hand, if she was paid $10K/month, it’s nice work if you can get it.

anon says:
10 Sep 2006  at  08:13 am | #

Wulsin: 3. Verify and elaborate on East Africa Phase II trial.

What are the East Africa Phase I and II trials? Dr. Wulsin needs to be asked what these trials are.

What role did Dr. Wulsin play, if any? If she handled human subjects data that was obtained in research that violated human subjects protections law, then she broke the law. The law is strict on these matters and prohibits researchers from participating in any way in illegal research that violates the human rights of patients.

According to the Radar article, Heimlich is using impoverished East African sex workers as experimental subjects. How in the world does Vic Wuslin square this with her image as a humanitarian?

Dr. Wulsin is no babe in the woods and she knows the law. Wulsin has the obligation to report the primary investigator(s) to the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services and other applicable agencies.

Weirded Out says:
10 Sep 2006  at  07:07 pm | #

I’ve been quiet about all of the Heimlich stuff over the past year. But now I can’t keep my fingers quiet. Someone has to speak up about this NOW.
If innocent people were killed by this Immunotherapy/Malariotherapy treatment then someone must pay the price. And I don’t mean to a higher source- Like God. Pieces are fitting together. Phil is no where to be found on the west side this week. He is busy linning his pockets with money but for what? I haven’t seen a ad and only one yard sign. So is he still out there getting more money for the Institute? What about the poor uneducated Black Africans who are falling prey to Dr.Heimlich’s games?
Dr. Heimlich gets some Cincinnati Health Heros Award for Killing people? What was the Business Courier thinking? More PR bullshit? And the Enquirer won’t touch this because he is somekinda Teflon Don in this city? This is a major front page story that they are all running away from. Why? I read something about $ under the table. How about someone stepping up to the plate and taking a swing at it. Anyone got the balls to do it? 
It is time that a stop is put to this before they try to dump something into our water source to test all of Cincinnati. Yeah that sounds totally insane to the normal reader. But we aren’t dealing with rational people here either. If they can harm innocents, why not all of Cincinnati during a big weekend like Tall Stacks or a Bengals weekend? Think about it? These people could kill all of us and no one is there to stop them.

komarek says:
12 Sep 2006  at  04:15 am | #

Dean

Please publish the whole document you have instead of dribbling out excerpts and ranting about Vic Wulsin’s former clients.

Your current work on this seems tightly focused on the wrong question: “Who did she know and when did she know them?” By now we recognize how much you dislike anything involving the Heimlichs. Don’t hold back on publishing this document you have just so you can prolong “the suspense” and increase the time frame you can use the Beacon to slam Heimlich. Even those of us who are not Heimlich fans are getting weary of this obsession of yours.

Vic Wulsin never injected a single person with malaria. If she wrote about this process (and was fired for rejecting it), studied whether it worked as a cure for HIV (at a time when resources for helping impoverished AIDS sufferers in Africa were essentially nil), or committed the sin of working for (let alone associating with) someone you don’t like—none of that is of much political import.

If you want to tar someone with being a Heimlich political crony, you don’t have to look much farther than Jean Schmidt.

says:
12 Sep 2006  at  04:56 am | #

I will release the whole report, when I feel it is appropriate. 

Now you know how I felt, being told for weeks upon weeks by Wulsin that I would get the report in a few days.  They lied about that, too!

I never said Vic Wulsin injected someone with malaria.  Yet, the excerpts above (and the ones found in this strand, where “Freedom Fighter” took up the debate on the wrong strand) demonstrate that Wulsin advocated for continued investigation into malariotherapy—going so far as to suggest renaming it “Immunotherapy” to avoid the bad publicity it had received.

Yet Wulsin, when asked in public, says that the idea has “no scientific validity.”

Now why in the world would someone advocate for continued investigation into something with “no scientific validity”?

The fact that I have written about both Heimlichs before is not relevant.  Show me the error in my thinking!

You cannot!

All you can do is presume that I am making something up…

anon says:
12 Sep 2006  at  05:41 am | #

If she wrote about this process (and was fired for rejecting it), studied whether it worked as a cure for HIV (at a time when resources for helping impoverished AIDS sufferers in Africa were essentially nil), or committed the sin of working for (let alone associating with) someone you don’t like—none of that is of much political import.

This is entirely misinformed.

First of all, Dr. Wulsin wasn’t fired. She ended her association with the Heimlich Institute when reporters got wind of the fact that she was working there. Wulsin was being paid $10,000/month to provide a fundraising prospectus for malariatherapy. (Ask her.) Heimlich wanted a positive report from an MD which he could circulate to private donors. Wulsin needed campaign money. Voila.

Second, Wulsin has admitted handling patient data. If you knew anything about human subjects experimentation, you’d know that makes her an active participant in the research. If the work is violative - and the Heimlich Africa project deserves a word beyond that - Wulsin had a responsibility to report it. She didn’t, she hasn’t, and now she’s going to wear it.

Finally, Wulsin has never held elected office. Her campaign emphasizes her career in public health as her primary qualification for sending her to Congress. Since that’s all she’s ever done, that’s all she has to run on. Anyone suggesting that her participation in the sickening Heimlich Africa trials is of no political import is kidding themselves. Wulsin herself knows that it matters. That’s why she sat on the report.

You’d think a candidate’s fan club might want to find out if and why their candidate is lying instead of clobbering the messenger for bringing them the bad news.

Seeing Eye Dawg says:
12 Sep 2006  at  06:03 am | #

Running for public office is like a job interview. The public gets to interview candidates who, if elected, will be paid with our tax dollars.

The blind Wulsin lovers know next to nothing about her and don’t want to know anything more. What kind of a hiring manager doesn’t want to know the problems about a potential hire? If you hire someone without adequately checking background and then that person screws up, it creates whole new levels of unanticipated problems. (I give you George W. Bush.)

Anyone who doesn’t want to know bad news about a candidate gets what they deserve. The problem is that the rest of us have to deal with the mess, too.

To you blind Wulsin lovers, you might not want to push the Dean so hard to release the whole thing. Ever heard of a chick named Pandora?

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  08:36 am | #

All you can do is presume that I am making something up…

No, you are being charged with a lack of credibility, period !

WE can only come to the conclusion that you are taking comments out of context to support your obsessed agenda.

It would appear that the complete report will lead to a different conclusion by the public.

Outside of your inner green circle, you are alone and lack support !

So, keep your self absorbed rhetoric flowing for it lacks validity through concealment.

komarek says:
12 Sep 2006  at  11:52 am | #

Dean,

“I will release the whole report, when I feel it is appropriate. Now you know how I felt, being told for weeks upon weeks by Wulsin that I would get the report in a few days.”

The error in your thinking is this: You have hurt feelings because something you wanted was withheld, and now you are using similar tactics to make us “know how you felt.”

Are you prolonging your attack against Wulsin because she hurt your feelings?
Do you think voters support candidates because they care about your feelings?

Try this instead. Look at the work of respected investigative journalists. It’s frustrating and hard for anyone to get stories. But once they get the story, they publish it, without complaining about their hurt feelings.

Now that you have tracked down this document about this issue you are interested in, please act like a real journalist: just publish the story. Comment about it all you like, but take a professional, mature approach: get your story out.

“Now why in the world would someone advocate for continued investigation into something with “no scientific validity”?” Well, someone needs to do the work in order to determine whether or not there is scientific validity. It’s OK with me that a person do this work, and even that they step up and solicit the job.

Many, many mainstream medical therapies were once labeled crackpot theories. Imagine injecting yourself with cowpox in order to prevent smallpox? Or imagine using maggots to clean decaying tissue from suppurating wounds?

You admit now that Wulsin never injected a single person with malaria. Was it wrong to investigate whether a medical procedure works?  If it might work, is it wrong to offer a name for the procedure that makes the procedure more palatable? If the procedure doesn’t work, is it wrong to report that?

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies investigate medical procedures all the time. Many times, what is tried ends up failing. I agree that horrifying abuses have taken place in the area of medical experimentation. I don’t know what happened to the malariotherapy research subjects, but I’ll concede that this could very well have been a failure—and potentially an abuse.

But Vic Wulsin never injected a single person with malaria, told Heimlich the procedure was without scientific merit, and was fired for it. That’s the story here.

--pk---

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  12:51 pm | #

anon says:
12 Sep 2006 at 07:41 am | #

Is this Dean, the sock puppet, responding to his own posts or a green clone ?

Has he been listening to Mr. Annoy ?

I say, I want to know and I want to read the report only because I think it will lead to a different conclusion !

We are not trying to vaccinate Wulsin, we just think the Dean is immune from any conclusions except his own !

says:
12 Sep 2006  at  01:54 pm | #

Komarek, it has been only a couple days—a relative handful of hours in the long scheme of the campaign as a whole.  I am working on some off-the-site things concerning the report, and I am not at liberty to release the whole thing at this time.

But don’t worry.  We have plenty of time till the election.  You will get the report soon. 

If you think I am lying—and that there is nothing I am doing before I am comfortable to release the report—well, so be it.  I made the sarcastic comments about waiting in comparison to my own wait tongue in cheek.  I see no reason to justify every little decision.  But if you must know, there it is.  I do not think the time is right.

Now, to more substance… You wrote:

“Now why in the world would someone advocate for continued investigation into something with “no scientific validity”?” Well, someone needs to do the work in order to determine whether or not there is scientific validity. It’s OK with me that a person do this work, and even that they step up and solicit the job.

This does not cohere.  Click the link above to see more quotes from the report on the other strand, and click the link to see Wulsin talk in her own words on video.

She says she found that malariotherapy has NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY.  Yet, in her report, she advocates renaming it to avoid bad press and to continue investigations.

Those two pieces CANNOT match.  If it has no validity, why would she push for more tests?

How do you reconcile these facts?

You admit now that Wulsin never injected a single person with malaria. Was it wrong to investigate whether a medical procedure works?  If it might work, is it wrong to offer a name for the procedure that makes the procedure more palatable? If the procedure doesn’t work, is it wrong to report that?

Wulsin said she wrote a negative report for the HI, and that malariotherapy has no validity.  If that is the case, then it IS wrong to change the name and continue investigation.  Why would one investigate something one finds scientifically invalid?

But Vic Wulsin never injected a single person with malaria, told Heimlich the procedure was without scientific merit, and was fired for it. That’s the story here.

I agree with your first premise, but what about the other two?  If she was fired for her report that says the idea is without merit, then how can that same report call for more investigating?

You are making me repeat myself.  I don’t understand your refusal to reason on this simple point.

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  02:44 pm | #

Dean:

You want everyone to follow your hate bait for Wulsin and it is not happening. You want to string along your bias position in hopes that it somehow influences an election and you perceive yourself as the egotistical star.

Well, what is it you need to do to the report ? Modify it, excerpt it for your self serving benefit ?

In my humble opinion, you lack credibility and your analysis is unsupported as it is easy to draw far more likely scenarios than what you propose.

No one credible supports your arguments.

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  02:52 pm | #

I do not think the time is right.

Vindictive journalism !

Great reputation building for yourself, Jason !

komarek says:
12 Sep 2006  at  02:52 pm | #

Dean,

Sorry I misunderstood that you were making a joke.

When I see what you publish, I’ll evaluate it. Context is everything.

--pk---

says:
12 Sep 2006  at  02:53 pm | #

My analysis is not unsupported.  You and your crew just keep avoiding the point.  She said one thing, and wrote another.  Period.

Credible people do support this argument.  You will be hearing from them in the upcoming weeks.

says:
12 Sep 2006  at  02:57 pm | #

komarek:

I have already given context of Wulsin saying one thing and writing another.  Why don’t you evaluate that?

FF:

Vindictive journalism?  What do you mean?  I think it will be most “vindictive” when the whole report is released—that’s when you will stop your petty arguments.

As I said, I am still working off-site, and will let you know when I am ready.  Not everything needs to happen on your short attention span’s schedule.

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  03:09 pm | #

<i>Yet, in her report, she advocates renaming it to avoid bad press and to continue investigations.

Here we must once again agree to your premise, yet:

<i>Leonard Madu said he reluctantly asked Heimlich to withdraw from the conference because he didn’t want Heimlich’s presentation to eclipse other messages at the meeting, which is devoted to addressing the alarming spread of HIV and AIDS among Africans and African-Americans.

Heimlich said he would report new findings about malaria studies but would not say whether human subjects were involved.

Mosha said afterwards he thought Heimlich’s theories were counterintuitive, but would have been interested in hearing the doctor’s findings.

New findings would justify more appropriate naming !

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  03:20 pm | #

<i>Not everything needs to happen on your short attention span’s schedule.

Is this your plagiarized comments from Wulsin’s reply to your, ants in the pants, frivolous request for documents that you did not commission ?

It is a pleasure exposing your true blue/green colors !

Boo, Woo they aren’t buying your story and the illusion that you know more than the entire medical community and the Dean is the only one that can bring justice to the world !

anon says:
12 Sep 2006  at  03:54 pm | #

komarek, are you this Paul Komarek?

says:
12 Sep 2006  at  05:16 pm | #

FF, I would like to enter your comment #21 into the official public record as an exhibit of what is wrong with the common brain these days…

That did not make any sense.

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  05:50 pm | #

I would like to enter your comment #21 into the official public record as an exhibit of what is wrong with the common brain these days…

That did not make any sense.

Oh, I forgot you are the doctor of the world with all the, father knows best, answers.

Tell me Dean :

Why does the world need you to enlighten them when there are several medical associations that monitor studies ?

( Leonard Madu said he reluctantly )

Is this guy not credible ?

How is it that you have more answers than a medical institution that can raise more money in one month than the average American makes in a year ?

How is it that their team of lawyers, don’t know the law as well as you ?

How is it that Heimlich was willing to publicly speak about the studies, but, you claim that their activity is unlawful ?

Have you been hanging out with Nate Annoy and when you are asked to lay your cards on the table, you both come up empty ?

I can understand why you would try to understand the inner workings of the brain ? 

Freedom Fighter says:
12 Sep 2006  at  06:09 pm | #

Comment # 21

Referring to PanAfrica Conference 2004

Why weren’t the cops waiting for Heimlich ?

The program was published, they were reluctant to cancel his presentation.

Oh, I know:

They did not have the Dean to expose their wicked ways !

Komarek says:
12 Sep 2006  at  06:18 pm | #

komarek, are you this Paul Komarek?

NO !

I am the Dean, trying to add credibility to my rhetoric.

anon says:
12 Sep 2006  at  07:03 pm | #

Freedom Fighter, I can’t take it anymore. Your posts have driven me to the edge. I am asking Heimlich to put me out of my misery with a strong dose of malaria.

Dean, after I’m gone, please report Freedom Fighter to law enforcement and have him tried as an accessory to the crime. No jury could read the above posts and not send FF to the gas chamber.

Goodbye everyone - including Leonard Madu, whoever you are....

komarek says:
13 Sep 2006  at  04:13 am | #

Anon,

Yes.

--pk---

says:
13 Sep 2006  at  04:29 am | #

FF,

Heimlich’s UCLA connections got investigated for their participation—hardly something you do when everything’s on the up-and-up:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/02/16/loc_heimlich16.html

In fact, UCLA went on to find the professor in question guilty of violation federal regulations:

In the announcement Tuesday, UCLA’s review board said Fahey had violated federal regulations and UCLA policy for the protection of human subjects by not seeking approval from the university before allowing Chen to conduct research at UCLA.

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2003/LT030407.html

Again, not something that would be typical for a totally acceptable practice…

Further, check out this link:

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/O/b/ucl2865.shtml

Fahey’s involvement in Chen’s research will be reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Office for Human Research Protections, to the Fogarty International Program and to UCLA’s executive vice chancellor. This reporting is consistent with UCLA’s Multiple Project Assurance (MPA) and with federal regulations.

Like I said before, that’s a lot of trouble for an idea that is worthwhile…

komarek says:
13 Sep 2006  at  04:34 am | #

Here’s an argument for “censoring” blog comments:

Someone is now impersonating me!

--pk---

says:
13 Sep 2006  at  04:59 am | #

I knew #27 was not you—the capital “K” gives it away, among other things—but I thought it demonstrated something about how opponents to an idea will try to discredit without addressing the issue.

Freedom Fighter says:
13 Sep 2006  at  08:49 am | #

I knew #27 was not you—the capital “K” gives it away, among other things—but I thought it demonstrated something about how opponents to an idea will try to discredit without addressing the issue.

# 23 anon says:
12 Sep 2006 at 05:54 pm | #
komarek, are you this Paul Komarek?

Is this the pot calling the kettle black ?

Perhaps someone posted that to demonstrate how conspiracy theorist will go to any length to bolster their:

“We’re smarting than all the government agencies that have investigated these allegations without one arrest.”

You see, the Dean is not the only one who has excess to posters IP whois information.

Freedom Fighter says:
13 Sep 2006  at  05:34 pm | #

Kraft said Henry Heimlich developed the Heimlich maneuver on his own and has not injected humans with malaria but monitored such experiments in China in the late 1990’s

Now compare that to the Dean report:

Heimlich Institute’s “malariotherapy” experiments—in which patients suffering from AIDS are deliberately infected with malaria parasites—

It is time for the Dean to Put up or Shut up:

Dean:

1.) Do you have evidence that HI injected individuals with malaria ?

2.) Do you have evidence that HI infected individuals with malaria ?

3.) Do you have evidence that HI has advocated injecting, infecting individuals with malaria ?

4.) Do you have evidence that HI has done anything other than research the theory of malariotheropy ?

5.) Do you consider the Chinese medical community, quacks ?


I have tried Dean, but, I just don’t get to where you are at. In fact I suggest that you have distorted everything piece of evidence that you have made available for me to read.

komarek says:
14 Sep 2006  at  04:13 am | #

Freedom Fighter

It’s relatively easy to figure out who I am from my posts. It does not require access to my IP whois info.

When you click on my name on my Beacon comments, my website comes up, same as the website you choose to have associated with your Beacon login.

No conspiracy required.

--pk---

says:
14 Sep 2006  at  04:31 am | #

http://www.circare.org/malariotherapy.htm

Comment: Dr. Heimlich submitted this protocol to test induced malaria in Chinese subjects diagnosed with HIV/AIDS to the Great Lakes College of Clinical Medicine Institutional Review Board (GLCCM IRB) for review and approval in the spring of 1994. Neither unresolved ethical issues nor lack of jurisdiction over research conducted in China prevented the GLCCM IRB from approving Dr. Heimlich’s research. Experts from the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and expert researchers at academic institutions, however, judged it be seriously flawed and unethical, as described below in the section titled Expert Review & Critique of Malariotherapy Research Proposed by the Heimlich Institute. Six years later, following inspection of the GLCCM IRB, FDA suspended the IRB’s authority to review and approve studies subject to FDA regulation when the agency concluded that the IRB appears to lack the expertise or experience to ascertain the acceptability of proposed research in terms of institutional commitments and regulations, applicable law, and standards of professional conduct and practice. FDA’s evaluation of the GLCCM IRB is posted in the section titled What’s Wrong With This Research.

Freedom Fighter says:
14 Sep 2006  at  08:14 am | #

It’s relatively easy to figure out who I am from my posts. It does not require access to my IP whois info.

Seems like we have a paranoid instructor on our hands. I think in the psychological world it is called projection.

The comments were referring to the anon poster who is attempting to add credibility to this rhetoric. As if somehow, your comments then make the story factual.

IT DOES NOT !

anon says:
14 Sep 2006  at  04:05 pm | #

Heimlich’s finished. Wulsin’s next.

says:
16 Sep 2006  at  03:50 pm | #

Freedom Fighter = Tom Brinkman et. al (which includes Heimlich)? 

They were behind Nate Noy...wouldn’t be a stretch to see them support/fund Wussin, just as they did Hackett.

Interesting...very interesting.