Banner
    Neurological Surgery Professor Paul Muizelaar Banned For Illegal Experiments
    By Hank Campbell | July 22nd 2012 10:59 AM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    In 2010, when Dr. Paul Muizelaar of U.C. Davis began performing illegal experimental treatments on terminally ill brain cancer patients, he earned over $800,000. (1)

    That's pretty good money for an academic, especially while we are enduring the political theater of universities canceling core curriculum classes to try and pressure taxpayers into agreeing to tax increases if we 'care about education'.  

    Let's not pretend sports gets more attention.  Only 4 coaches make more than that, and 3 'executives' who run the byzantine higher education behemoth.   But 27 other doctors make more than him in the U.C. system. (2)

    He brings in money, as he will tell you.  Apparently that has a price. U.C. Davis has disclosed that they ordered Muizelaar to "immediately cease and desist" any research with human subjects they don't approve in advance. The university had already notified the government  that he had committed "serious and continuing noncompliance" with federal regulations.  Muizelaar has been chairman of the U.C. Davis Department of Neurological Surgery since 1997. Also banned was Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, an assistant professor who has worked with him for 13 years and was brought in to explore the idea of using bacteria to treat deadly brain tumors, which is what got them into trouble.

    Is he a kind of maverick doctor bucking regulations to try and save patients?  Sure, but rules are rules. Either way, in a 'teach to the protocol' environment controlled by government committees, those doctors are going into retirement anyway. The school seems to have given him so much leeway because he brings in so much money, according to an article by Marjie Lundstromin the Sacramento Bee. They reported it when they discovered the approval they assumed he had was not in place. Now they could lose a lot of funding.

    Obviously, human experimentation is tightly controlled in the United States.  Not only did he break the law, he doesn't even have a license to practice medicine in California.  How so?  U.C. Davis got him a 'special faculty permit' issued by the Medical Board of California"I'll be frank with you, I'm world famous, so they gave me the license to practice here," he said. "I can go sit for the exams, but why would I do that?"

    He's even more famous now.  He just put U.C. Davis on the map for all the wrong reasons, basically an academic version of that goofy pepper-spraying security guard.(3)  He got consent from three terminally ill patients to introduce bacteria into their open head wounds. Post-operative bacterial infections, the kind of thing most doctors avoid, might help them, they hypothesized.  But two of the patients got sepsis and died.

    Brain science is having a tough week.  A neuroscience Ph.D. student shot up a theater in Colorado at the "Dark Knight Rises" premiere too. Social totalitarian progressives blame the gun, of course, which is kind of like blaming a spoon for making Rosie O'Donnell fat(4), but you can just as easily blame neuroscience for attracting kooks as you can guns.

    Muizelaar is not completely without things to do.  He is still on grant committees to approve proposals for the NIH.

    NOTE:

    (1) And still does. They only banned human experimentation without their approval.

    (2) So much for 'selection bias' (i.e. academia does not pay enough) as an explanation for why conservatives are so underrepresented in academia. That whooshing sound you hear are all of the job applications filing in.

    (3) He's also still employed by UC Davis. Presumably he cannot pepper spray passive student protesters unless he has prior approval from the highest levels too.

    (4) Why pick on her?  She is an anti-gun zealot who famously argued that her childrens' bodyguards needed to have guns because she is famous.

    James Eagan Holmes, 24-year-old graduate student at the University of Colorado-Denver, was arrested - not shot on sight - outside the theater clad in black body armor and armed with three weapons, which shows you Colorado police have more restraint than anyone else on the planet.

    Comments

    Not real sure what the point of this blog is??? Sound's at one point the author is taking pot-shots at university funding, and is supporting this wacko's behavior at another. Then, he kind of wanders off to talk about "brain science". A good deal of interesting information but where is this discussion going???

    The subject in question should not only be "banned", he should be prosecuted for killing two individuals with his "experimentation" that, at best, is something you might expect of Dr. Jeckell.

    Gerhard Adam
    Is he a kind of maverick doctor bucking regulations to try and save patients?  Sure, but rules are rules.
    Not sure what the point of this statement is, since presumably a witch doctor burning incense and invoking incantations is also trying to "save" the patient.  Intent isn't the basis by which we perform medicine nor conduct science.
    Social totalitarian progressives blame the gun, of course...
    Blame is obviously too strong a term here, but "facilitate" ... definitely.  Just like automobiles cause more accidents than horses did and aircraft crashes are routinely fatal for all passengers, let's stop pretending that guns are some innocuous little tool that people carry that does no harm.

    It is dangerous precisely because it requires so little effort to be fatal.  Certainly this guy would've been less lethal if he'd only had a knife, just as he would've been even more dangerous if he'd had access to a rocket. 

    So, while the gun isn't too blame, it also isn't exempt from examination.  Unfortunately, the notion of banning guns is no solution either, because it has never made a difference to those that choose such violence.  However, let's also not pretend that an armed citizenry is any kind of solution.  It doesn't take much imagination to envision the kind of chaos that would occur in a smoky theatre with a bunch of armed amateurs all shooting at someone they think has a gun.

    Hank
    U.C. Davis biology prof Jonathan Eisen has an exhaustive list of articles related to this - obviously this casts a cloud on UC Davis overall (public perception anyway, but that counts - the FDA knows BPA is safe and banned it anyway, so facts don't always count) but I was intrigued by a 2008 piece where a neurosurgeon under fire said there was a a faulty review system and felonies by UCD bosses - and mentions the special treatment and death rate of Muizelaar:
    Between June 2004, when he went to work at the medical center, and the spring of 2006, "Dr. Chang's professional performance was considered excellent," the suit says. However, it says, that was "before ... he spoke out on Dr. Muizelaar's unlicensed, illegal medical practices and documented medical incompetence." 
    More on this as scientists determine what he was trying to get at with his bacteria.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    The actions – described by two prominent bioethicists as "astonishing," and a "major penalty" for the school – threaten both the doctors' professional careers and the university's reputation and federal-funding status.
    http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/22/4648415/2-uc-davis-neurosurgeons-accused.html
    I find it disturbing that ultimately three patients died from what is little more than speculation, and ultimately pseudoscience, and the primary concern seems to be federal funding.

    I am curious to know what this particular procedure cost these patients in insurance terms.
    Hank
    Some of it is procedural but, like I noted, consent from terminally ill/desperate people has a much stricter oversight.  He seems to have been rogue, though for what would be good reasons (if they were on a TV show) or bad ones (can't be bothered because 'I am rich and famous') is unclear.  It's certainly odd but looks like ego.  The enterobacter aerogenes they used came from ATCC and their material transfer agreement says it isn't for use in humans.  This bright man, one of the 'best doctors of 2011' certainly knew that.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Three patients did not "die from speculation". They died from Glioblastoma . The compassionate patient care given them was an effort on the part of the surgeons to try to extend their lives. There is a lot of misleading information in the Sacramento Bee article . Remember, you cannot always believe everything you see in print. The doctors are extremely caring physicians, and this was not any kind of clinical trial or experiment. It was an attempt to extend their lives. ...and by the way - the second patient went on to live over a year at home .

    Gerhard Adam
    Two died soon afterwards from sepsis; the patient that lived the longest did have a reduction in the size of their brain tumor, but suffered a wound infection.
    http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120724/11052/glioblastoma-malignant-glioma-uc-davis-bacteria-open-wound.htm
    It was an attempt to extend their lives...
    Do you really want to get into an "end justifies the means" argument?  Perhaps the "they were going to die anyway" argument?  The fact of the matter is that you would be screaming bloody murder if someone had tried some pseudoscientific nonsense, regardless of the motivation to "save lives".

    Therefore, it isn't intent, it's science that matters and neither of these doctors had a shred of scientific evidence to support this treatment.  It was purely speculative and failed.

    What misinformation do you think is being reported?  As I said, I'm not interested in what the doctors "intended".  There is a rather popular phrase about "the road to hell" that seems applicable.
    Makini Brice has misleading information also. But rather than argue, let's give it some time, see how it all plays out when the truths are known, and move on from there.

    Gerhard Adam
    No one is claiming that there is criminal intent here, so what's the basis for claiming that there is misleading information?  It seems that people are looking to find excuses because of the doctor's motives.

    They screwed up. 

    You might even argue that it wasn't that bad, but I don't want to have that conversation when some future case comes along that may be even more questionable and the researcher's claim that they were only trying to save lives.

    There's only one possible misunderstanding;  is there a peer-reviewed paper that indicates that introducing an infection is a viable form of treatment?  I'm not talking about anecdotes, or speculation.  Something that demonstrates clearly that research has been done that makes this a strong suggestion for investigation.  If not, then these doctors were simply out of line and engaged in experimentation for speculative reasons.
    Hank
    You're making a terrific point and it seems to be missed by apologists; if this were a Big Pharm company in the third world, would anyone be apologizing for them because they got informed consent?  Absolutely not, the cries would be exploitation.  Informed consent from desperate, terminally ill people is easy to get - that is why they deserve more protection.  They are not going to think as rationally as someone with skin cancer might be about an experimental treatment that could kill them.

    The look elsewhere effect says these doctors probably felt like they had been reasonable in asking for consent - but they weren't.  And using the bacterium in humans against the MTA is a cut and dried guilty sign.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind