| More on the Potti scandal | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 11 2010, 08:56 AM (8,324 Views) | |
| I'mstillaRebel | Aug 11 2010, 03:11 PM Post #16 |
|
It's beginning to remind me of Al Capone and the IRS. Never mind the horrible things Capone was guilty of--he went to prison for failure to pay taxes. Never mind the corruption and cover up that Brodhead et al were guilty of in their abuse of RCD--it's going to be failure to check the credentials of one crooked researcher that opens the window that blows the whole house of cards down. Blow wind blow! |
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Aug 11 2010, 03:40 PM Post #17 |
|
Nauseating, sickening, disheartening. "Brodhead cautioned, though, that it was important at this stage of the investigation to remember that 'every allegation is not a truth.'" WHERE WAS THIS STATEMENT WHEN HIS STUDENTS' LIVES WERE AT STAKE????? "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. I am dumbfounded.... |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Aug 11 2010, 04:30 PM Post #18 |
|
Brodhead is just an English teacher. He knows no better. Yale was glad to get rid of him. We now know why. I am wondering who brodhead is relying on now for advice since the Mr. Steel man is no longer at Duke. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 12 2010, 08:53 AM Post #19 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Payback | Aug 12 2010, 10:41 AM Post #20 |
|
Potti-mouth Potti-mouth Potti-mouth. Whatever he said was bad enough. Dickie has a potti-mouth. Edited by Payback, Aug 12 2010, 10:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| jarms | Aug 12 2010, 10:48 AM Post #21 |
|
"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...." Spoken like the true moral relativist he is, or as Tim Tyson put it "humanist of the highest order." This is what happens when you take God out of the university. Erudite and sophisticated reasoning completely wasted on a false premise. Remembering that classic UNCF advertisement, I can only observe that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste." |
![]() |
|
| Q.A. | Aug 12 2010, 03:44 PM Post #22 |
|
Q.A.
|
“There is no reason for additional safeguards, the Duke president asserted”- as he dug ever-deeper the grave of Brand-Brodhead (and implicitly “to hell with Brand-Duke”) This quoted statement could be valid, if by “safeguards” Brodhead was referring to the existing Duke Medical Center Rules, Regulations, Policies, & Procedures. If they can be ignored, as they were for Duke-Lax, why add to them? "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. We're not going to start running background checks and police checks on everybody. You can't reasonably do that, nor is there a need to," Brodhead is reported to have said. “...will in general continue to accept credentials on their face as presented by the people who present them.”? These weasel-words seem to arise from a poorly-informed source. Duke’s credentialing protocols are supposed to meet the standards of The Joint Commission, the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), the Bylaws of the Medical Staff and any other regulatory body or organization - including the National Practitioner Data Bank, under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986. If they fail to follow those standards Duke’s continued Accreditations are threatened: For example the Joint Commission provides for verification of things like medical training from “primary sources” such as directly from the alleged Medical School itself, whatever “...will in general continue to accept credentials on their face as presented by the people who present them.” is supposed by Brodhead to mean. "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.” Here is a relevant Duke website. http://dukemd.mc.duke.edu/modules/gateway_resources/print.php?id=1 The site includes the following: “Medical Staff Information Credentialing Process The credentialing protocols for the Duke University Health System (DUHS) have been designed to meet the standards of The Joint Commission, the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA), the Bylaws of the Medical Staff and any other regulatory body or organization....” Yes, there is no need to start running background checks and police checks on everybody. Just follow the rules you’ve already got. Edited by Q.A., Aug 12 2010, 03:49 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Aug 12 2010, 08:11 PM Post #23 |
|
Ever since LAX, brodhead has been desperate to have Duke lead at something. Genetic profiling for cancer therapy is a method developing that is considered at the forefront of potential "cures" for cancers. Duke commits heavily to that technology both financially and scientifically. Once again, brodhead has no choice but to protect the brand that he has totally committed to. Brodhead needs to bring Duke to the leadership edge of cancer treatment. That is what he is trying to make his legacy about. He fails miserably when, once again, his sermons yield nothing but confusion, ignorance and a passionate embarrassment of a once great institution. Brodhead must wonder (or maybe not) why ever since he chose to become the leader of Duke University, everything he does turns to crap. Coach K, LAX, China, overseas incompetence, biochemistry fraud and now his and Dukes star...a nobody. Edited by chatham, Aug 12 2010, 08:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Aug 13 2010, 04:40 PM Post #24 |
|
The blogger Fact Checker has done an outstanding job covering this expanding scandal and its cover-up by Duke University. He has been publishing in the Comments section of the Duke Chronicle (which has not been censoring his/her posts). Fact Checker obviously has inside connections at Duke. One might speculate that he/she is a retired Duke faculty member or employee on the basis of Fact Checker's informed commentary. The entire academic enterprise is based on trust and honesty, whether it be in job applications, curriculum vitae, grant applications, and research publications. One who blatantly lies about any one of these categories should be subject to suspicion about the others. The false claim by Dr. Potti that he was a Rhodes scholar may only be the tip of the iceberg. We have learned from the lacrosse case not to jump to conclusions, but a full outside investigation is needed, especially since patients' lives are at stake. We also learned from the lacrosse case that Duke cannot be trusted to police its own faculty.
Edited by sceptical, Aug 13 2010, 04:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| MikeKell | Aug 13 2010, 05:23 PM Post #25 |
|
Still a Newbie
|
It's not just Duke. It's many arrogant snots. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/education/13harvard.html?hpw Inquiry on Harvard Lab Threatens Ripple Effect By NICHOLAS WADE Published: August 12, 2010 Harvard’s slow-motion inquiry about the laboratory of Marc Hauser, one of its star academics, has cast a shadow over the several different fields in which Dr. Hauser and his students published papers. Marc Hauser is one of Harvard's most visible academics and is frequently quoted in articles about language, animals' cognitive abilities and the biological basis of morality. Related So far only one of Dr. Hauser’s articles has been retracted, for unspecified reasons, and two have been amended. Harvard has given no reason for the retraction, leaving researchers to wonder whether that article alone was flawed or whether all of Dr. Hauser’s results are suspect. SNIP |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Aug 13 2010, 05:25 PM Post #26 |
|
If it weren't for the cancer patients who may die as a result of being treated by the Brodhead-brand of medicine, if it weren't for the honest researchers who were passed over when the grants were given to the pretend Rhodes scholar and the honest advances in medicine the honest researchers might have made, if it weren't for the history of incompetence at the highest levels at Duke these last few years, then today's report from Fact Checker would be perceived as a hilarious spoof on all that's gone wrong in academia. Reading it, getting deeper and deeper into the horrors, I burst into uncontrollable laughter for a while. This kind of report ought always to be comic, something Jon Stewart would come up with, not a truthful analysis of real events. Even Brodhead with his string of quotable comments going back at least to the confession of pre-judgment ("Belief of it oppresses me already") and going right forward to the latest interview ("intermediate explanation")--even Brodhead sounds like a sick invention of a ruthlessly twisted and hilarious Colbert. Fact Checker says: "A Chronicle search of Potti's name prior to 2010 yields only Porta-Potty used at an event on the quad and discussion of a potty-mouthed comedian. A search of Duke Magazine did not even yield that." Who can invent this kind of stuff? The only thing missing is the loss of forthcoming Potti publications down the Porta-Potty. Is there an end in sight? Edited by Payback, Aug 13 2010, 05:39 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Aug 17 2010, 12:55 PM Post #27 |
|
I was at the Duke clinic today to see my ENT guy. I asked him what he thought about the Potti scandal. He did not know much about it but sid he did hear something about it. I said to him with all the scandals at Duke one has to wonder how good it is. I said they need to get rid of brodhead. He did say he has heard a lot about that. I guess it does not amaze me all that much that a doctor would not know that much about Potti. But my ENT does treat head and neck cancers and IMO it might be worthwhile for him to know more about the environment he works in. Anyway, he knows about it now. I even brought up the LAX case to him, lol lol. And yes, he did have time to help me with my sinus problem ...woohoooooo. |
![]() |
|
| MikeKell | Aug 17 2010, 03:42 PM Post #28 |
|
Still a Newbie
|
Duke just isn't Duke anymore. It used to be a university-based medical center where the doctors were involved in both treatment and research and campus matters mattered. Now with so many clinics, there are doctors who are Duke employees with a Duke ID card, but that is the end of the association. Many have never been on or near campus. There are so many Duke clinics now is is close to McClinic status. So I am not surprised your guy didn't seem involved. Most are not and happy to have it that way. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Aug 17 2010, 04:19 PM Post #29 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Yes, I've seen that. Branding gone awry. . |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Aug 17 2010, 05:30 PM Post #30 |
|
How much of this is post 2004? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






9:15 AM Jul 11