[Dean's World] Dean: Answering The Critics

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
Answering The Critics
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1186620777.shtml


   I just got off the phone with Dr. Miklos down under. For some stupid
   reason, after over 2 years of correspondence, I'd somehow assumed he
   was Spaniard by descent, but it turns out he's a Hungarian. Silly me.

   Still, he's semi-retired, and paid as a genetics consultant. He has no
   book to sell, no treatment plan to offer, no patent to sell, and no
   profit motive. I already knew all of that except the Hungarian part.
   I've always loved Hungarians since I met my first Hungarian, whose
   name was Atilla Nanay. I told George that if he was named Atilla Gabor
   rather that George Gabor, everybody would be afraid of him. He laughed
   heartily and said "Atilla Genghis would be even better, eh?"

   George's list of peer-reviewed publications is longer than your right
   arm, stretching over the last 30 years. Just go ahead and check if you
   don't believe it. He's just in a position right now where he owes no
   allegiance to anyone, financially or otherwise. Indeed, as his recent
   email stated:

     I am semi-retired, financially independent and enjoying a lifestyle
     that allows me to think, interact with whomsoever I wish, travel
     internationally and write without any pressures from academia,
     government or the corporate world.

     I set up Secure Genetics nearly 10 years ago as a private
     consulting company so that I could think about data in my
     retirement and draw upon the expertise of people whose clinical and
     scientific expertise I valued.

     It transpired that a number of firms, large and small, wished to,
     and continue to, use my insights into various problems with which
     they are faced, precisely because I have no axe to grind. I just
     evaluate data; scientific, clinical, statistical and corporate.

     Secure Genetics has never applied for any grants, government or
     private, nor does it intend to do so. It is not a front for, nor
     does it endorse, any particular technologies, imaging or otherwise.

     The article:

     When one looks at the completed Miklos-Baird article and it's
     references, the only reference to an imaging technology for human
     cancer is reference 98 which is to Magnetic Resonance Imaging of
     lymph nodes of patients from the Massachusetts General Hospital and
     the Harvard Medical School. I do not know any of the people
     involved. This is the type of imaging technology which the article
     highlights for metastatic cancer.

     As far as BioTraces is concerned, it's a company whose technology I
     have been aware of for over a decade. It is a radioactive
     technology and cannot be used in cancer patients for in vivo
     imaging because of the properties of the multi photon detection
     characteristics. A look at the picture will reveal an image of a 2
     dimensional format which any scientist or clinician would
     recognize. My current intellectual interests are in evaluating 2D
     protein gel data in the adult stem cell field in terms of cutting
     edge technologies. The Biotraces radioactive methodology is
     particularly suitable for this, hence the picture.

     I have not received any payments from Biotraces, nor do I consult
     for them, nor do I help them apply for grants. I interact with them
     as I do with all my affiliates when I need advice in areas in which
     I am deficient.

     The data I have evaluated for recent international clients have
     involved the diverse areas of renal dialysis; chemical
     fractionation technologies for immunoglobulins; single nucleotide
     polymorphisms potentially predisposing to myocardial infarction,
     stroke and atherosclerosis and finally, trade mark disputes
     involving pesticides.

     I became interested in the cancer area as one that was a complete
     mess in terms of therapies that seemed to be doing little for
     patients and so I have slowly evaluated it over the last 5 years as
     a personal intellectual challenge, in combination with my friend Dr
     Phillip Baird who is both a physician and a pathologist of decades
     standing.

     If the cynics wish to fly over to the northern beaches of Sydney to
     enjoy the idyllic surroundings and genuinely discuss cutting edge
     scientific and clinical aspects of cancer that may be of
     therapeutic benefit to patients, or any other of the diverse areas
     in which I have an interest, then they are most welcome to do so.
     Attached is a picture from my home office. They would then realize
     that the last thing one would wish to do is to bother interacting
     with granting agencies, private or governmental, or setting up
     imaging companies. Life's too short for that.[1] view from George's
     study 

   After talking to George, I made a single invitation: he and Dr. Baird
   should review all the comments left so far on Dean's World on this
   particular series of postigns of their article, and respond on the
   front page to any comments they find particularly interesting or
   worthy of challenge. For example, commenter Elizabeth Reid left a
   couple of commments regarding a couple of their citations that deserve
   an answer in my view. I am otherwise proud to have presented this
   series, and to have presented a simple question to American (and
   non-American) taxpayers and medical consumers:

   Are we getting our money's worth out of what we've spent these last
   30+ years?

References

   1. file://localhost/files/deanesmay-view_from_georges_study.jpg