Deception at Duke
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57376073/deception-at-duke/
Not only was Dr. Potti's research fraudulent, he claimed (falsely) to be a Rhodes scholar.
His claim.....that he had found a way to match chemo to each person's tumor.
JoAnn
Comments
-
New York Times last weekJoAnnDK said:a special place in hell
I should add that I think there should be a special place in hell for doctors like this Dr. Potti....but he is still in practice as a "cancer specialist" in South Carolina.
And a md at mskcc is being sued by Penn med center for stealing research and starting a billion $$$ drug company!!! I think the MD is HEAD of the Center Center at MSKCC.0 -
Karma will bite him in the endJoAnnDK said:a special place in hell
I should add that I think there should be a special place in hell for doctors like this Dr. Potti....but he is still in practice as a "cancer specialist" in South Carolina.
Horrible people.0 -
Deceptionjulia12756 said:Karma will bite him in the end
Horrible people.
Bet his license is gone from every practicing, plus jail time.
Horrible people in this world, and they claim to be doctors to help the human race...yeah sure!
Jan0 -
DUKE: ANIL POTTIjazzy1 said:Deception
Bet his license is gone from every practicing, plus jail time.
Horrible people in this world, and they claim to be doctors to help the human race...yeah sure!
Jan
Yes, this is the Anil Potti. Check out the North Carolina Medical Board information on Potti, including the 11 malpractice suits settled in his name within the last few months. All relating to his research and fraudulent clinical cancer trials conducted at Duke University. Also read the 2 lawsuits filed in Durham County District Court involving 9 of his former patients, of which 6 have unfortunately died already. Check out the Chronicle (Official Duke Students news letter), search for Potti, Nevins, Cuffe, Marcom, Callif, Crawford and others. To stay up to date on this matter, please check the DukeCheck Blog, it is accurate and timely. Yes, I have a personal stake in this, my sister is one of the patients that was harmed by these people.0 -
Silverblackmansilverblackman said:DUKE: ANIL POTTI
Yes, this is the Anil Potti. Check out the North Carolina Medical Board information on Potti, including the 11 malpractice suits settled in his name within the last few months. All relating to his research and fraudulent clinical cancer trials conducted at Duke University. Also read the 2 lawsuits filed in Durham County District Court involving 9 of his former patients, of which 6 have unfortunately died already. Check out the Chronicle (Official Duke Students news letter), search for Potti, Nevins, Cuffe, Marcom, Callif, Crawford and others. To stay up to date on this matter, please check the DukeCheck Blog, it is accurate and timely. Yes, I have a personal stake in this, my sister is one of the patients that was harmed by these people.
So sorry for the harm your sister endured at the hands of this man....
I am just now reading this topic. So sad.
Laurie0 -
Alas!TiggersDoBounce said:Silverblackman
So sorry for the harm your sister endured at the hands of this man....
I am just now reading this topic. So sad.
Laurie
Yes, this alleged "doctor" should be drawn and quartered. But while a majority of med school researchers, let's hope, are honest, there is great temptation to falsify--or at least exaggerate--findings in clincial studies in order to gain coveted grant money to do even more research. It is a vicious political cycle. Which for me means that we must try to decide how to treat ourselves from the widest range of research, and authorities, as we can. No easy task to be sure.
As Ralph Moss warns, it's easy to overestimate the efficacy of a given treatment based on the evasive language of clinical studies. A "fifty-percent response rate" is often cited enthusiastically as proof of success when the very term "response rate" merely means shrinkage of a major tumor==a shrinkage that may be merely temporary and/or hardly gateway to a cure. So before choosing a treatment, we should likewise insist on clear language from our oncologists.
So sorry you had to be victimized by this charlatan!
Rosey0 -
licenseRoseyR said:Alas!
Yes, this alleged "doctor" should be drawn and quartered. But while a majority of med school researchers, let's hope, are honest, there is great temptation to falsify--or at least exaggerate--findings in clincial studies in order to gain coveted grant money to do even more research. It is a vicious political cycle. Which for me means that we must try to decide how to treat ourselves from the widest range of research, and authorities, as we can. No easy task to be sure.
As Ralph Moss warns, it's easy to overestimate the efficacy of a given treatment based on the evasive language of clinical studies. A "fifty-percent response rate" is often cited enthusiastically as proof of success when the very term "response rate" merely means shrinkage of a major tumor==a shrinkage that may be merely temporary and/or hardly gateway to a cure. So before choosing a treatment, we should likewise insist on clear language from our oncologists.
So sorry you had to be victimized by this charlatan!
Rosey
Jan, not only was Dr. Potti's license not taken away, he was given a new one in South Carolina and is now a practicing oncologist there. So he has been rewarded for his cheating. What a world.
Duke's #1 cancer doctor wrote Potti an effusive recommendation for his new job and later rescinded it. But by then, Potti had been hired.
The DUKE CHECK BLOG cited in a previous post has a lot of information. Here is the link: http://dukecheck.com/
Hannah0 -
Rosey, along this line is a very, very interesting dvdRoseyR said:Alas!
Yes, this alleged "doctor" should be drawn and quartered. But while a majority of med school researchers, let's hope, are honest, there is great temptation to falsify--or at least exaggerate--findings in clincial studies in order to gain coveted grant money to do even more research. It is a vicious political cycle. Which for me means that we must try to decide how to treat ourselves from the widest range of research, and authorities, as we can. No easy task to be sure.
As Ralph Moss warns, it's easy to overestimate the efficacy of a given treatment based on the evasive language of clinical studies. A "fifty-percent response rate" is often cited enthusiastically as proof of success when the very term "response rate" merely means shrinkage of a major tumor==a shrinkage that may be merely temporary and/or hardly gateway to a cure. So before choosing a treatment, we should likewise insist on clear language from our oncologists.
So sorry you had to be victimized by this charlatan!
Rosey
Healing Cancer From the Inside OUt
The narrator goes into the many ways that results can and are skewed through simple language usage. The dvd offers many different points of view and a short history of why the medical community is where it is.
So sad to hear a person capable of such disregard of fellow humans. Thanks Joanne.0 -
duplicate postRoseyR said:Alas!
Yes, this alleged "doctor" should be drawn and quartered. But while a majority of med school researchers, let's hope, are honest, there is great temptation to falsify--or at least exaggerate--findings in clincial studies in order to gain coveted grant money to do even more research. It is a vicious political cycle. Which for me means that we must try to decide how to treat ourselves from the widest range of research, and authorities, as we can. No easy task to be sure.
As Ralph Moss warns, it's easy to overestimate the efficacy of a given treatment based on the evasive language of clinical studies. A "fifty-percent response rate" is often cited enthusiastically as proof of success when the very term "response rate" merely means shrinkage of a major tumor==a shrinkage that may be merely temporary and/or hardly gateway to a cure. So before choosing a treatment, we should likewise insist on clear language from our oncologists.
So sorry you had to be victimized by this charlatan!
Rosey
oops0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 397 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 792 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 539 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards