California Doctors Banned For Unauthorized Human Experiments

Shades of Nazi Germany? Alyssa Newcomb reports for ABC News:

Two University of California at Davis surgeons have been banned from doing human research after they injected bacteria into the head wounds of consenting terminally ill patients without university authorization, according to a letter sent from the school to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The university ordered Drs. J. Paul Muizelaar and Rudolph J. Schrot to immediately “cease and desist” doing the procedure last fall, according to the letter, dated Oct. 17, 2011, obtained by the Sacramento Bee.

Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi has ordered a review into the actions of Muizelaar, who is chairman of the department of neurological surgery at UC Davis, and Schrot, an assistant professor.

The lack of approval before conducting human research could jeopardize the school’s federal funding, said Rosamond Rhodes, director of bioethics education at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine…

[continues at ABC News]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

5 Comments on "California Doctors Banned For Unauthorized Human Experiments"

  1. Seriously, Nazi Germany? Consenting and terminally ill is a little different than Nazi experimentation don’t you think? If anything you should be looking at how the “authorities” aren’t allowing for experimentation by doctors on consenting terminally ill patients to most likely protect their pharmaceutical corporate overlords. Grow your own medicine that actually cures something? We can’t have that. What would happen to our shareholders? Corporations are people my friend. Sociopathic people who’s moral compass is completely controlled by profit.

  2. Calypso_1 | Jul 29, 2012 at 12:18 am |

    Let’s take a look at the actual Nuremberg Code that governs all medical consent…was it violated?  See anything about Federal, FDA, or university approval?

    1.      The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
    2.      The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. 
    3.      The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
    4.      The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
    5.      No experiment should be conducted where there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
    6.      The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. 
    7.      Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
    8.      The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. 
    9.      During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
    10.  During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

  3. pargerpaser | Jul 29, 2012 at 7:36 am |

    my buddy’s
    half-sister brought in $12115 the previous week. she gets paid on the
    computer and bought a $482900 condo. All she did was get fortunate and
    use the information revealed on this site

  4. Linsang811 | Jul 29, 2012 at 8:01 am |

    Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like the standards at disinfo have been plummeting lately. Nazi Germany experimented on babies, prisoners, and NON-consenting people. This absolutely nothing like that.

    • Calypso_1 | Jul 29, 2012 at 9:43 am |

      In a world where ‘rhetoric’ in many forms so readily reverts to the hyperbolic disintegration of thought as defined by Godwin’s Law et al, I think it is worthy to examine situations such as this in that light.
       Somewhere in this country, this Sunday morning, there is a high probability that a preacher is in a pulpit telling their congregation about liberal Nazi doctors killing patients with experiments because of Obama Care. 
      So for more rational heads to enter into a discussion an opportunity is created not only to become more informed of the situation at hand but to set aside a description that has become a trite pejorative when instead it should be one of dire warning into the presence of many systemic abuses that do indeed exist within our society.

Comments are closed.