Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
More on the Potti scandal
Topic Started: Aug 11 2010, 08:56 AM (8,318 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://moronsinchapelhill.com/2010/08/10/why-anil-potti-shold-move-to-canada-victims-of-disgraced-pathologist-smith-to-receive-compensation.aspx?ref=rss

Why Anil Potti Shold Move To Canada: Victims of disgraced pathologist Smith to receive compensation

The Ontario government announced Tuesday it will compensate families who were victims of flawed pediatric forensic pathology by Dr. Charles Smith between 1981 and 2001.

A highly publicized inquiry set up in 2007 and led by Judge Stephen T. Goudge found Smith made false conclusions of foul play in 19 of 45 pediatric autopsies that led to wrongful prosecutions of parents and caregivers.

The Goudge inquiry condemned the failings in the practice and oversight of pediatric forensic pathology at Toronto’s world-renowned Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), where Smith worked until 2005.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/9066876/article-Brodhead--No-changes-to-hiring-planned-at-Duke?instance=main_article


Brodhead: No changes to hiring planned at Duke
08.10.10 - 09:35 pm
By Neil Offen

noffen@heraldsun.com; 419-6646

DURHAM -- Duke University President Richard Brodhead says the university doesn't envision any changes to its vetting procedures for credentials following accusations that a leading scientific researcher at the school padded his résumé.

"The university will in general continue to accept credentials on their face as presented by the people who present them," Brodhead said Tuesday during a discussion with the editorial board of The Herald-Sun. "Everyone who comes to us, especially in a faculty position, has had their value cross-tested by any number of people along the way."

There is no reason for additional safeguards, the Duke president asserted. "We're not going to start running background checks and police checks on everybody," he said. "You can't reasonably do that, nor is there a need to."

In his first public comments on the charges surrounding whether Anil Potti, an associate professor of medicine, falsified his credentials to obtain his Duke post and whether he committed misconduct in obtaining grant money for his research, Brodhead said he was comfortable with the way the investigation of the charges has proceeded.

"Questions have been raised and they have been put into suitable processes to answer them," Brodhead said. "We've tried to be as open and even-handed in establishing that process as we can."

Brodhead cautioned, though, that it was important at this stage of the investigation to remember that "every allegation is not a truth."

What "we want, therefore, is for people to back off until they can learn whether the allegation was true or whether the allegation was false or if there is some intermediate explanation," he said.

Potti, a cancer researcher who has been put on administrative leave by the university, in fact faces three separate investigations -- how he obtained his post at Duke, whether he falsely obtained grant money for his research and a broader review of whether the methodology and results of that research are flawed.

Potti reportedly lied about being a Rhodes Scholar and made other unverifiable biographical claims that were included in the grant applications that gained funding for three clinical cancer trials involving more than 100 patients.

Duke administrators said at the end of last month that the internal investigation of Potti's credentials and employment should be completed shortly. "By that I mean it should be resolved in days or weeks," said Michael Cuffe, vice president for medical affairs at the Duke health system.

But on Tuesday, Doug Stokke, a spokesman for the health system, said the investigatory process was continuing and that there is no "defined timetable" for when it will be completed.

The investigation into research misconduct typically takes months, officials have said. And it is likely that the broader review of the research by an outside body also will take months to complete.

It has been reported that Harold Varmus, the director of the National Cancer Institute, has asked the Institute of Medicine National Cancer Policy Forum to lead that investigation. Brodhead said it was important to have the science reviewed by "the highest and most trustworthy tribunal that can be done."

In the meantime, the three clinical cancer trials have been suspended and the American Cancer Society also has suspended payments on a five-year, $729,000 grant awarded to Potti and his Duke colleague, Joseph Nevins, a professor of breast cancer genomics, to study the genetics of lung cancer.

If the broad review "produces some national understanding of what the statistical methods are, that would be a good result," Brodhead said. "That would be valuable."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Brodhead breaks silence, defends Duke's vetting of Potti. He contends there can be "intermediate explanation" between truth and lies.
✔ Fact Checker here.

Headline: Brodhead says vetting of Potti
worked just fine. No changes needed.

Well well well, guess who surfaced.

Richard The Absent sat down with the editorial board of the Herald-Sun, just shy of a full month from the day our campus was rocked by The Cancer Letter's revelations about the credentials of Dr. Anil Potti. Actually, Fact Checker understands Duke was tipped a few days before the July 13th publication date and Potti's suspension.

Picture this: Potti faked a Rhodes Scholarship. During the same period he should have been at Oxford (that's in England) for the Rhodes, he faked a fellowship at an Australian university that does not exist. He faked having a mentor, offering the name of a professor who says he had never heard of Potti at that point. He faked awards from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Lymphoma Research Foundation and The American Society of Hematology. And he offered three different dates for his MD degree. That's what's confirmed so far.

All that was atop repeated assertion over several years that his science did not hold water; not assertion, wrong word, but pleas from some of the world's leading genome researchers that patients in trials run by Potti and Dr. Joseph Nevins were being subjected to treatment for lung and breast cancer based upon bad science.

Brodhead quoted in Wednesday's Herald Sun:

"The university will in general continue to accept credentials on their face as presented by the people who present them... Everyone who comes to us, especially in a faculty position, has had their value cross-tested by any number of people along the way."

There is no reason for additional safeguards, the Duke president asserted. "We're not going to start running background checks and police checks on everybody," he said. "You can't reasonably do that, nor is there a need to."

Right, Dick, everything's working out just fine. Cross-tested along the way.

✔The next line from Brodhead was the killer. If he had said this when a dizzy prostitute and a dishonest prosecutor enmeshed our lacrosse team in fake sex charges, he'd probably have saved himself a lot of trouble: "every allegation is not a truth."

"We want, therefore, is for people to back off until they can learn whether the allegation was true or whether the allegation was false or if there is some intermediate explanation..."

Back off!! The same thing he told the pot bangers? The same thing he told the people marching with the "Castrate" sign!!

And between true and false, there is an "intermediate explanation." This is an English professor speaking, not a leader who should be sending an unequivocal message to this campus, and to the 1700 new freshmen arriving in a few days.

"Intermediate explanation!!" Now that's original.

Potti either had a Rhodes or not. He either had a mentor or not. What can an "intermediate explanation" between truth or lie possibly be.

My fellow Dukies, it is time to rewrite the Community Standard honor code: you have truth, lies, and a pod where you can perch in-between? Plagarism, or the "intermediate explanation" that the cursor slipped!!

✔No doubt Duke is taking so long with its internal investigation into Potti's credentials because it wants to provide him with adequate time to prove himself innocent. Another possibility: he may have tenure, which these days is all too often claimed by rascal professors hiding behind academic freedom to avoid being canned.

In case you are wondering, Mr. President, the confirmation of Potti's lies comes from some pretty good sources: the Rhodes Trust, for example, which runs the scholarships, said he never had one. That alone is cause for dismissal. I repeat. That alone.

✔And a final quote: "We've tried to be as open and even-handed in establishing (the internal and external reviews) as we can."

Well Mr. President, let's talk about using two Vice Deans in the Medical School as key people in your even-handed investigations.

The Dean of Duke Med School is Nancy Andrews. Her husband, Bernard Mathey-Prevot, Ph.D.is one of the collaborators with Potti and Dr. Joseph Nevins (whose science is also under investigation) in writing at least one article in a major medical journal.

There can be little doubt the Potti scandal will metathesize to embrace this work. There's no doubt two people who were promoted to their current jobs by Andrews, two people who still report to her, should not hold high responsibility in the probe of her husband.

Were you "open" about that?

Yes, Mr. President, Fact Checker has seen your transparency!! Time and time again. It is one of your signatures. Also seen the people in your administration endorse the principle of accountability.

✔If all this weren't enough, Brodhead tries to squirm from responsibility for Potti. He wants to turn the external revue away from Duke's lying associate professor, hoping it "produces some national understanding of what the statistical methods are, that would be a good result.... That would be valuable."

Mr. Brodhead, research into the mysteries of DNA and RNA, and trying to apply this knowledge in the hidden corners of disease, is a lot more complicated than reading and re-reading Milton and a dozen Ph.D. dissertations all taking to each other. But it is rather self-serving for you to attribute the lies of Potti to alleged confusion -- which has recently surfaced in Chancellor Dzau's remarks and now in yours -- about standards for the emerging field of translational medicine.

Maybe we do need tighter standards. But let's quit occluding the work before this university and focus first on getting the cancer of Potti excised from our body.

✔Some final observations about our leader: the Herald-Sun article does not address patients in the Potti-Nevins trials (trials, nice word for experiments) at all, and we therefore do not know if Brodhead mentioned them or not.

They have received scant attention: while Duke did suspend (for the second time) Potti and Nevins from enrolling new patients in their studies, this morning 107 or 109 people continue to be treated for lung and breast cancer according to their designs. That's pretty damn scary.

Has Duke reached out to them? Told them the facts? Offered them alternative therapies reviewed by independent doctors? Or are your lawyers saying "don't do that, it's giving up the proof needed in the malpractice cases that are sure to come."

Beyond the 107 or 109, Fact Checker is trying to find out how many candidates were subjected to painful and dangerous procedures, to donate tissue to see if they were suitable for the "studies."

How many gave informed consent to join these experiments -- because they were deceived.

✔Mr. Brodhead, when you sit down with Fact Checker, which is not anticipated soon, here's the first question. Not the sort of thing the good people at the Herald-Sun are likely to slam at you.

I want your reaction to a quote from Paul Goldberg '81, meticulous editor of the Cancer Letter:

"When questions about Potti’s science emerged in scientific literature and in alarms sounded by internal critics, the Duke administration formed a protective barrier around the man they considered their star, forming committees that operated in secret, and then incorrectly portraying the findings of one of these committees as validation of Potti’s science."

That's not Fact Checker speaking. That's the editor of Cancer Letter.

✔Now... some other aspects of the Potti mess.

I love the power of the internet. Loyal Readers will recall my discussion of the analogous years-long probe into the science of Homme Hellinga, James B. Duke professor of biochemistry. I asked the Dean of the Medical School Nancy Andrews about reports she had thrown a graduate student out of a public forum on biochemistry department issues for bringing up Hellinga. I also asked Associate Dean Wesley Byerly about an e-mail telling the biochemistry faculty to shut the hell up; this was immediately after a well sourced Chronicle update on Hellinga last spring.

Duke PR replied: there will be no comment on the investigation, you should understand that.

What an attempt to obfuscate! No one asked Andrews to comment at all on Hellinga. I want her version of what SHE did in a public meeting.

Actually within four hours after I posted, Loyal Readers filled my mailbox with details, including the name and current contact information for the graduate student who was tossed. Following up, be patient.

As for the Biochemistry e-mail, within six hours after I posted, a Loyal Reader put a copy in my hands. The warning on the e-mail be damned, that it contained "legally privileged and/or confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee." You'll see the text very soon.

✔Duke does have a deadline in the internal investigation of Potti. He's suspended, and federal regulations provide he must be back at work in three months, or bye bye grants.

Actually, a Loyal Reader tracking Potti grants has been unable to find one. 1R01CA136530 which should be valid through 2011. Hmmm, did this get terminated or did Duke succeed in having it moved from Potti to another researcher?

As for a deadline, another weasel word emerged this morning. Loyal Readers will recall Dzau and Vice Dean Cuffe saying the credentials investigation was almost wrapped up. From Cuffe's comments, I calculated a deadline of July 30. Today the Duke PR Man Stokke said there is no "defined timetable" for the investigation.

✔Finally, I mentioned that when I am impelled to write bad news, that I wished there were a way to put a black border on my signature ✔. A Loyal Reader responded within hours, instructing me about Wing Dings. I've been busy but it watch for it soon.

✔✔Thanks for reading and for loving Duke.

Duke.Fact.Checker@Gmail.com
Archive http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/
Posted by To reach Fact Checker at 12:53 AM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

http://blog.sethroberts.net/category/academic-fraud/

The Potti Scandal

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

A Duke University associate professor named Anil Pott who does cancer research turns out to have fabricated numerous details on applications for research money. The first fabrication to be noticed was that he had received a Rhodes Fellowship.

This is interesting because Duke had previously investigated him:

Late last year [2009], there was a crescendo that caused Duke to stop clinical trials on three of his research programs, two involving lung cancer and one involving breast cancer. In each program, Potti was giving patients chemotherapy — determining what drugs might work best and in what dosage — based upon his genome research.

In January Duke let these programs resume after an internal review. [emphasis added] And these are the precise programs where Duke — for the second time — has now suspended new [emphasis added] enrollments. . . . In an official statement on the winter review, Duke said it had determined Potti’s approaches were “viable and likely to succeed.”


Someone who appears to be a total fraud is called to Duke’s attention — and they find him innocent! This is what happened with the SEC and Madoff and Memorial University and Ranjit Chandra. Chandra’s research assistant, a nurse, told Memorial something was wrong and Memorial did nothing, or very little. Chandra then sued the nurse. He went on to write the paper that Saul Sternberg and I investigated.

Someone lies on his resume — it happens. That a prestigious institution like Duke let him continue to get away with it, possibly endangering patients and surely wasting vast resources, after it’s brought to their attention — not so well-known. So far, the New York Times has only covered the false-resume side of the story. You may recall how poorly Duke responded to charges against its lacrosse team.

As this unfolded, Duke had the following headline on its website: “Crisis management 101: What can BP CEO Hayward’s mistakes teach us”. From a CNN story in which a Duke expert was quoted.

Duke.Fact.Checker notes that Potti’s papers have at least 26 co-authors! Many with M.D.’s, who have or will tell thousands of trusting patients “you should take Drug X”. The patient endangerment is not trivial.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Comment from another site:

Quote:
 
Those of us in the lower echelons of hiring are sternly warned never to inflate our resumes, for fear of being caught with a simple phone call and banished forever from the profession. We dare not embellish our computer skills with an extra program, add in a reference who happens to be a friend, or scale up our performance reviews.

Yet there's a continuing conga line of extremely senior scientists and politicians making wild claims about their experiences. Not small potatoes lies, such as saying you were an office manager instead of just an admin, but huge lies about rank in the military, reception of incredibly competitive scholarships, participation in conferences, and top positions at previous jobs.

You mean to tell me, therefore, that the human resources guy at a small engineering firm does better due diligence with hiring than the human resources department at a major research university? At this level, you'd think that strenuous fact-checking would be the norm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Two more comments from the same site:

Quote:
 
What's wrong with Duke University? How much effort does it take to do the due diligence to make sure your employees aren't lying on their resumes?


Quote:
 

I am again shocked by failure of prestigious scientific institutions to thoroughly check the academic and work credentials of every person employed in scientific studies. It is inexcusable to allow less than professionally accredited researchers to perform such important work, especially when their results could potentially injure test subjects and the public at large.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

And one more:

Quote:
 
What is most disturbing to me is not what Potti did, but what Duke has failed to do. Being a physician-scientist myself, I have seen it over and over again - the refusal of those in power in academic institutions to take action against those who are "happening" in the field - due to their fame, grant dollars they bring or just political power. The Hellinga controversy at Duke itself is case in point. A highly influential and connected biochemist at Duke retracted two high-impact articles after being challenged by outsiders on the validity of the work. He first tried to pin it on his student, but later retracted and took responsibility. Duke has been "investigating" for two years, but has not come to any conclusion. It perhaps helped that Hellinga's wife is also in another leadership position in the same department. Similary in the Potti case, Duke initially had an internal investigation with external reviewers, but reached its on conclusions about the validity of the statistical models used although the unnamed reviewers mostly said that they were unable to say with certainty if the results were valid or not. If those involved were poorly funded struggling faculty, the dismissal might have been swift, but since Duke promoted Potti's personalized medicine as the next big thing, not to mention the grant dollars brought in from various sources, the approach was more nuanced.

In my opinion, the culture of protecting the money/ reputation interests of these big name universities is the real culprit here. Cheats and low-lifes exist in all walks of life. Scientists and physicians are no exception. But systemic corruption in universities that look into their interests only has to be taken head on. I hope the reagents at Duke will make the Administration at Duke case and point and fire their lot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

And one more still:

Quote:
 
I am a scientist at Duke and in recent years there has been a pervasive culture that encourages faculty to only publish in high profile places such as Nature, Science and Cell. This in my opinion is fostering fraud since only those that publish in such journals on a routine basis are recognized by the institution. Researchers that engage in careful diligent honest science are marginalized, not given tenure or promotions and treated like they are third rate because they are not trying to be celebrity scientists. Science is just not like the Duke administration think it should be.

Most honest scientists who ultimately do discover some ground-breaking event do this may be once in their careers, certainly not every year. Certainly most conscientious scientist would expect to publish in high profile places one or twice in their careers. At a "scientific retreat" a few years ago both our former medical school Dean and current Chancellor stood before the majority of the research faculty and told them " although most Nobel prizes are not awarded for work published in Cell, Science and Nature, we want you to publish there anyway". This kind of “motivational speech” encourages corruption and fraud, and is likely to attract individuals who are prepared to indulge in it. In my opinion this is why in the past 3 years we have had two major highly public fraud allegations at the University. These cases are the tip of an iceberg “. As Marcellus in Shakespeare Hamlets once said to Horatio "there is something rotten in the Sate of Denmark"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Ditto:

Quote:
 
I doubt this is a case of a single bad apple. Instead it stems from a rotten local culture reminiscent of eerily similar stories on Abu Ghraib, Enron, and others. For instance, why is Joseph Nevins (Potti's mentor and coathour) not discussed in the NY Times story? Mr Nevins owns a stake in the company profiting from contract work with the clinical trials (Expression Analysis) and thus has a significant conflict of interest. For instance, Mr Nevins falsely claimed to have been "blinded" in a validation study of one their tests involving European patients. The Eurpoean coauthors flatly denied this "blinding" claim and also noted that they could not reproduce the Duke results. This calls into question not only Dr. Nevins' false statement regarding blinding, but the entire test upon which clinical trials were designed and from which he may have profited. This falsehood has finally been acknowledged by the editor of the journal Lancet Oncology 3 years after the paper was published in 2007, but at what cost to taxpayers and helpless patients? NY Times, please don't just scapegoat a single liar and stop this story. You must expose all the bad elements before they run loose and victimize more folks later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

And:

Quote:
 
...What if the Rhodes allegation had not surfaced?

Despite his obvious ethical lapses in misrepresenting himself for self promotion, it seems ironic for us to focus on a single line in Anil Potti's CV. Much more damaging is evidence that the Duke "Investigation" failed to fully analyze the internal methods and results with their "outside experts" in addressing the litany of "errors" that Baggerly and Coombes have been pointing out since 2008.

The types of "errors" suggest a pattern of fraud that even if committed by a single individual, should have captured attention for those at Duke long before this point. These include expected oversight by his mentor Dr. Joseph Nevins, the Duke IRB, and the Deans Office, not to mention the journals (Nature Medicine having the most egregious editorial behavior in addressing letters from readers, and addressing "errors").

However, it appears that obvious conflicts of interest kept these forces from doing their jobs. For instance, Dr. Nevins owns ExpressionAnalysis, a company contractually providing services for these trials, Dr Potti and Nevins hold patents on the methods, the Journals rarely retract papers after publication, etc, etc.

It is disturbing that such fraudulent research can thus be so uniformly sanitized until a faked CV credential merits a news headline as a scandal. Arguably as disturbing is the silence of the scientific community in waiting to voice concerns until the Rhodes scandal. If you study lists of authors on Potti's papers a pattern emerges: Dr. Nevins was his partner, and unless he never saw primary data or steps in its analysis, he must have had suspicions about the errors as they occurred repeatedly.

Separately, how do so many papers appear using complex statistical methods without a biostatistician on the more recent papers? For instance, why did Dr. Mike West (http://www.stat.duke.edu/~mw/) who did most of the work on develop methods for the earliest papers from the group not participate in later works? Why did Dr. John Byrd of OSU/CALGB and Dr. Neil Kay of Mayo Clinic provide precious specimens and clinical outcomes for their trials of patients with CLL, but not participate as authors? Think about it.

How many patients with lung cancer suffered unnecessary pneumothoraces (and perhaps death) within the CALGB study in order to obtain the tissue for the opaque and impossible to reproduce Lung Metagene Score? How many of the 107 patients at Duke randomized based on potentially methods to "approved" chemotherapy should be receiving another therapy?

Indeed institutional cover-up and silent tolerance of bad science is significantly more serious, and allows people like Potti to continue to commit fraud. We are all to blame in this mess for letting a person like Potti abuse our system of scholarly merit for self advancement.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Fact Checker deserves a Pulitzer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
I'mstillaRebel

Brodhead quoted in Wednesday's Herald Sun

"There is no reason for additional safeguards, the Duke President asserted. 'We're not going to start running background checks and police checks on everybody.' he said. 'You can't reasonably do that, nor is there a need to.'"

Let there be no more assumption on anyone's part as to the intelligence of Dick Brodhead--he's just stated with alarming clarity that he is, in fact, an idiot. In order to work as a volunteer in my church nursery--I must now have a background check. Anyone who is hired by the major teaching hospital where I work--must have a background check--from top to bottom--research physician to floor cleaner.

What exactly could be wrong with Brodhead that he doesn't know this??????
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar


"The university will in general continue to accept credentials on their face as presented by the people who present them," Brodhead said Tuesday during a discussion with the editorial board of The Herald-Sun. "Everyone who comes to us, especially in a faculty position, has had their value cross-tested by any number of people along the way."

Hmm. In 2002 the New York TIMES accepted Brodhead's credentials on their face value when they assumed that a dean at Yale and someone who had published a book on Melville and Hawthorne knew something about Melville--knew, for instance, the documents in the 1951 THE MELVILLE LOG, a book Brodhead had claimed familiarity by citing it.

Probably no one at the busy and increasingly irresponsible New York TIMES bothered to say something like, "We're not going to start running expertise checks on every Yale dean. You can't reasonably do that, nor is there a need to."

Yet Brodhead in his 23 June 2002 review of the second volume of Parker's biography of Melville DID NOT KNOW about the book Melville completed in 1860, POEMS. The first biographer did not know in 1921, but the documents were printed in 1922 and had been reprinted many times, most recently on the pages of the book Brodhead was reviewing. Among these documents is a 12-point memo from Melville to his brother Allan on the publication of his verses! In the review Brodhead said this: "Parker is . . . convinced that Melville prepared a volume of poems in 1860 that failed to be published. If this is so, a stretch that had seemed empty of literary strivings was instead a time of new effort and new failure--a black hole Parker alone has the instruments to detect." What a witty way of not quite asserting that Parker all alone fantasized this volume! A black hole that Parker alone has the instruments to detect. A biographer who claimed to be working from archival evidence but really was a fantasist!

Or perhaps there is "some intermediate explanation." Perhaps Brodhead knew that everyone had known about POEMS since 1922 but was so determined to trash Parker's reputation that he indulged in a little whimsy about "Parker alone" with his claim to knowledge.

"Every allegation is not a truth." Did Brodhead mean "Not every allegation is a truth"? Every allegation Brodhead makes may not be a truth, since the word at Yale all during his decades there was that there was no such thing as truth and that "facts" were to be ignored in favor high flying interpretation. See how the great Yale New Critic Feidelson trashed THE MELVILLE LOG in print in 1951 and trashed it for decades in classes.

Is it any wonder that Brodhead throws up his delicate fingers at the idea of "facts"--why, the facts keep changing, and a body just can't keep up with the changes! The facts did NOT keep changing. The facts were that the lacrosse players were innocent at the party, were innocent the next day, and still are innocent.

"All that glitters is not gold." Do we mean "Not all that glitters is gold"?

Brodhead was a glittering Yale dean when Steel hired him. Not all that glitters is gold. Brodhead was--shall we say "pinchbeck"?

Some of what glitters is gold. "Fact Checker" is golden. Think about the long list of golden boys and girls who have emerged from the pile of pyrites where the reputations of the Gang of 88 are strewn! If I start to name them I miss some of the great golden heroes. Start with the players and Pressler and that coach of the female lacrosse players, go on to Stuart and KC, get Mike Gaynor in, go to Joan Foster and maggief and Quasi and Baldo and so many others who formerly posted or still post on LieStoppers. Don't forget Tortmaster. Sceptical and abb and many others can add a dozen names, fast, golden. Oh, I did not put Bill Anderson's name down! The great heroic PERSISTENT Bill Anderson! This is good: there are so many heroes of the Hoax that you can't just sit down and type out names you think of. And think about how important it is to persist, as Bill Anderson and Mike Gaynor and Quasi and so many others do. One big bright statement can get lost but we are in the age of the Internet, and persistence pays off.

"Questions have been raised and they have been put into suitable processes to answer them," Brodhead said. "We've tried to be as open and even-handed in establishing that process as we can."

I think we have all been pretty open and even-handed at LieStoppers.
"FACT CHECKER" deserves a Pulitzer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

It's the man at the helm. Brodhead should have been fired in 2007. Remember that Commission that was supposed to look into Duke's Handling of the Hoax? Class Class? Dead Silence.

I suspect political correctness pervades every orifice at Duke under the leadership of King Richard

It is sad for what was once a world class university to be so incompetent in handling truth.

Stuart Taylor pointed out the culture in one lecture concerning the Campus reaction in 2006 where he said Duke Professors knew what was happening but refused or were cowed into not speaking out.

"It is about the Truth"

Edited by Baldo, Aug 11 2010, 11:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
genny6348
Genny6348
All I can say is My-O-My, just stunning. Go get'em! :elmer:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply