and a documentation of
Doctors can't refute the embarrassing facts
so they try to ignore or deny them
Table of contents with summaries
3.7. The much cited but previously not produced phantom study from Germany of ROP and light gets published in late 1994. Its text and its lead author do not bear out those who had quoted its abstract in defense of the current lighting.
My letter to Dr. Volker Seiberth, Universitäts-Augenklinik, Mannheim, Germany, dated August 15, 1993.
I sent him my IATROGENICS paper and inquired about the timing of the eye protection for the babies in his study.
Reply from Dr. Seiberth, dated December 23, 1994, confirming that the preemies in his recent trial were not protected for the first "few hours".
Dr. Seiberth et al.'s paper "A Controlled Clinical Trial of Light and Retinopathy of Prematurity", reprinted from American Journal of Ophthalmology, October 15, 1994.
The abstract and the conclusion state misleadingly that "patching of the eyes from birth" does not decrease the risk of ROP. However, deeply buried in the text you find that the babies' eyes were left without protection for at least several hours, and neither reviewers nor editors questioned the contradiction.
Long before the publication of this paper, Dr. Seiberth had became aware of my documentation that exposures of a few minutes can be critical in causing ROP. He did not refute any of it but he let stand his wrong description of that critical timing in the most visible parts of his paper. He is thus spreading the knowingly false allegation that protection from light had not helped when in fact no protection had been given.
3. 8. Obfuscation and cover-up by
Letter from Charles B. Inlander, President, The People's Medical Society, dated April 6, 1989, to Dr. William C. Ellis, Senior Medical Staff Consultant at the New York State Department of Health, and coordinator of the Technical Advisory Group on Intensive Care Nursery Lighting convened to address my complaints.
Mr. Inlander reiterated here his and my requests for documentation of some of the group leader's patently false assertions and confirmed his understanding that tapes of the sessions would be made available as promised. Neither the documentation nor the promised tapes were supplied.
My letter to Dr. David Axelrod, New York State Commissioner of Health, dated April 8, 1990, complaining about his Technical Advisory Group's biased report and willful disregard of documentation it was unable to refute.
I pointed out a series of deliberately false statements, misquotes, and fabrications in the report, and that it contradicts some published writings from its Advisory Group's own experts. I further asked Dr. Axelrod to place his sworn duty to the public above his professional allegiance.
Reply from Dr. Axelrod, dated May 3, 1990, avoiding to address the easily verifiable misrepresentations in the report that I had pointed out. He flatly asserted that my material had been carefully considered, and that there was nothing else he could do.
My letter to Dr. Axelrod, dated June 9, 1990, accusing him and those responsible for the Technical Advisory Group's report of criminal conspiracy to dissimulate a known and unrefuted danger and to cover up an ongoing patient-harming malpractice. I received no reply.
My letter to Robert Abrams, New York State Attorney General, dated June 9, 1990, in which I accuse Dr. Axelrod and several members of the Technical Advisory Group of criminal conspiracy to cover up a patient-harming medical malpractice, and of criminal gross negligence for willfully and intentionally failing to protect vulnerable patients from a known danger. I received no reply.
3. 9. When the stone wall falls, it is likely to fall on those who try to hide behind it.
Letter from Earl A. Palmer, M.D., Study Chairman for the Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Outcome Study, dated May 12, 1993, about my IATROGENICS article.
Dr. Palmer says one of his earlier observations on the timing of ROP development is now changed, and the new timing is diametrically opposed to my conclusions - although he does not say how.
My reply to Dr. Palmer, May 18, 1993, explaining that his revised timing fits the light damage scenario even better and rather confirms my conclusions instead of opposing any of them.
I ask him why he had nothing to say about the main message of my article and its unrefuted documentation of the danger from light, and I warn him about the consequences of continuing the cover-up which is clearly doomed. I received no reply.
3. 10. Assorted cover letters sent with this book to alert its recipients to the baby-blinding safety violation and to ask them for their help in ending it.
My letter to Mr. Patrick G. Hays, President and CEO, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, dated August 14, 1996.
My letter to Alan Slobodin, Esq., Counsel, Commitee on Commerce, U.S. Congress, dated August 14, 1996.
My letter to Jerome P. Kassirer, MD, Editor-in-Chief, The New England Journal of Medicine, dated August 14, 1996.
My letter to Lonnie R. Bristow, MD, President, The American Medical Association, dated August 14, 1996.
My letter to Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor, The Journal of the American Medical Association, dated August 24, 1996.
My letter to William A. Silverman, MD, author of books and many articles on retinopathy of prematurity, dated August 18, 1996.
3. 11. The infamous LIGHT-ROP trial has been funded anyway, regardless of ethics
Letter from Linda Huss, Freedom of Information Coordinator, the National Eye Institute, dated September 6, 1996, informing me that the LIGHT-ROP trial has been funded.
Letter from Linda Huss, Freedom of Information Coordinator, the National Eye Institute, dated January 27, 1997, informing me that the letters of approval for the LIGHT-ROP study from the Investigational Review Board are not in the application file although that file lists them as an enclosure, and although the law mandates that such Boards must evaluate the ethics of each medical experiment on humans.
My letter to Professor Harold T. Shapiro, Ph.D., Chairman of President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission, dated March 24, 1997.
I complain that the LIGHT-ROP experimenters expose human patients intentionally to a maximum of the radiation they believe to be harmful, that they omit to mention their well documented reasons for this belief on the parental consent form, and that they have designed their experiment as an intentionally misleading scientific fraud by protecting the babies too late to do them any good.
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission's reply, dated April 14, 1997, signed by Henrietta Hyatt-Knorr, Acting Deputy Executive Director.
She sent me a copy of their cover letter transmitting my complaint to Dr. Gary B. Ellis, Director, Office for Protection from Research Risks, because "it is not in the purview of the President's charge to the Commission to examine individual cases."
My letter to Professor Jay Katz, member of President Clinton's former Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, dated May 1, 1997.
I ask him to alert the government that the current routine ethics violations in the intensive care nurseries are even worse than the gross violations in the Tuskeegee study for which the President is apologizing.
Reply from Professor Jay Katz, dated May 14, 1997, agreeing that my letter and materials raise serious ethical concerns, and informing me that he plans to talk about this subject to Dr. Gary Ellis at the Office for Protection from Research Risks. I received no further reply.
Continue to an account of the frauds in preemie research which the cover-up is trying to hide.
Contact us at recoveredscience.com