NYT: NYU's Martin Blaser has no credibility
Mort Zuckerman
To: martin...@med.nyu.edu, ca...@drcarolgoodheart.com,
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: NYT: NYU's Martin Blaser has no credibility
Date: Feb 23, 2010 10:13 AM
NYT Article below about how Pharma trains
MDs. Of course, the Pharma in this Lyme/Blaser
instance is SmithKline, but the other wing of
the Lyme cabal is Kaiser-Permanente at NY Medical
College - TRAINING MDS.
Unfortunately Blaser has no credibility
as a supporter of the Lyme Cryme Crew
http://www.actionlyme.org/080430_RICO_CABAL_CAVES.htm
who *now* say "Lyme is an inflammatory disease"
(changed at Dearborn), but who used to say,
Borreliosis or Relapsing Fever cause all
those Great Imitator outcomes, like syphilis
and is a stealth pathogen:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PRIMERSHELLGAME.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP3_B.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CHP_9_IDSA_REVIEWS.htm
and the cause of the Great Imitators is
known- it's OspA, their non-vaccines:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Pam3Cys_Version15.htm
So, Blaser is a supporter of this Lyme
cryme crew, when now the whole world knows
Pam3Cys causes immunosuppression, so predictably
that it has applications in CNS protection and
heart damage limitation (like stroke and
lithium):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20081527[uid]&cmd=DetailsSearch&log$=details
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=19661221[uid]&cmd=DetailsSearch&log$=details
(Lithium and Pam3Cys do the same thing.
They inhibit the autokill kinases, or
promote BCL2 class molecules' expression:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1735052/?tool=pubmed
Yes, I meant to put up ^^^this specific link;
this link is not in error.))
If NYU's MDs-in-training are on the Poor-
Man's Diet, it would be because this criminally
stupid Lyme cryme gang lost all their funding,
and not because of any "morality," as alleged by
the idiot/liar/sociopath, Martin Blaser.
Blaser is no kind of scientist or
expert, and in fact, needs to be
replaced with a REAL scientist.
Someone who understands how stuff works,
like, you know: tripalmitoyl cysteine
and TLR2 agonism:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=tlr2[All%20Fields]%20AND%20agonist[All%20Fields]&cmd=DetailsSearch&log$=details
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
==============================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/business/23docs.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print
February 23, 2010
Doctor Training Aided by Drug Industry Cash
By DUFF WILSON
More than half of the nation’s medical residency programs to train
doctors in internal medicine accepted financial support from the drug
industry, even though three-fourths of the programs’ directors said
accepting the aid was “not desirable,” a survey found.
At issue are potential conflicts of interest as the residency programs
accept drug company support to help train tens of thousands of new
doctors at a point in their careers when they are beginning to
prescribe drugs, according to the survey report.
The article was published Monday in the Web version of The Archives of
Internal Medicine. “Program directors are aware of the problem, but
right now they don’t have the funds to be free,” Dr. Joanne M. Conroy,
chief health care officer of the Association of American Medical
Colleges, who was not involved in the survey, but had seen the report.
The survey, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that drug companies paid
for educational materials like pocket guides in 83 percent of the
programs that accepted support, meals in 90 percent, office supplies
in 68 percent and drug samples in 57 percent.
Medical residency programs in the southern United States were much
more likely to accept the industry largess than those in the Northeast
— 72 percent to 47 percent. The overall rate of accepting drug
industry financing was 55 percent, but that was down from the 88
percent level reported in a 1990 survey.
The Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine conducted
the survey. Responses were returned by 236 of the nation’s 381
internal medicine program directors, who together train more than
22,000 doctors.
Of special note in the survey results, the authors wrote, programs
where fewer graduates passed tests from the American Board of Internal
Medicine — “one indicator of program quality” — were also more likely
to accept the assistance.
Dr. Furman S. McDonald, a co-author of the survey report and director
of internal medicine residency at the Mayo Clinic, said it was unclear
whether the lower test scores indicated a lack of overall support for
the residency programs that took industry money, or a negative effect
from the information being imparted by the pharmaceutical industry.
“As the pass rates went down,” he said of the new doctors’ test
scores, “the odds of accepting pharmaceutical support went up.” Dr.
McDonald called for more research in that area.
Residency programs in internal medicine typically last three years
after medical school, “a particularly formative time for physicians,”
the study said.
Other surveys have indicated that medical residents do not think that
their own actions are influenced by industry gifts, but that they do
think that their colleagues are influenced. Surveys have also shown
that gifts as small as a pen or food can influence prescribing
patterns.
Meals are often provided for busy residents during educational
presentations.
Dr. Martin J. Blaser, chairman of the department of medicine at New
York University, said his organization’s internal medicine residency
program decided about five years ago to stop accepting food or
financial support from industry.
“I spend a fair amount of my budget feeding my residents,” Dr. Blaser
said, “but then they can learn in a way that is not unduly influenced
by who is feeding them.”
“Our lunches are not quite as opulent as the lunches they used to
have, but they have sufficient nutrition,” said Dr. Blaser, who was
not involved in conducting the survey.
While 72 percent of the survey respondents said drug industry
financing was not desirable, many of those skeptics still took the
money, the survey showed. The reason, for two-thirds of the directors
who reported taking industry money, was inadequate financing from
other sources.
They also cited the popularity of drug industry perks among residents
in 40 percent of the programs, and encouragement from the
administration in 19 percent.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education is the one
place that could possibly ban such pharmaceutical financing in all
medical residency programs, Dr. McDonald said. The survey did not call
for a blanket ban, but for more research.
The accreditation council declined comment on Monday.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci