University Fails to Offer Another Viewpoint
Posted in the Columbus Forum
#1 Mar 12, 2014
Professor Karen Holbrook, Ph. D. is the newly appointed president of Ohio State University. She is currently provost at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Dr. John R. Seffrin, Ed.D. is Chief Executive Officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Professor Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is a distinguished professor (now emeritus) at the University of Illinois, Chicago, has authored or co-authored about a dozen books and about 300 scientific articles.
In the 1998 book (1) and a 1999 article in the International Journal of Health Services (2), Dr. Epstein made a number of criticisms of the ACS over approximately the past 30 years.
Dr. Seffrin was asked, very politely, about these criticisms at a public lecture he presented at the University of Georgia, Athens April 11, 2001. He was unable or unwilling to answer a single one of the criticisms. The local daily newspaper in Athens failed to report this fact although they had a reporter present at the lecture.
An assistant of Dr. Seffrin offered to send information but none was ever forthcoming. Furthermore, the local newspaper in Athens refused to publish an article submitted by Professor Epstein rebutting most of what Dr. Seffrin said about cancer in the lecture.
All this was documented in a letter to Dr. Holbrook dated June 12, 2001, in which she was asked to invite Professor Epstein to the University of Georgia to present a lecture of his own on the subject of cancer. She refused and did not answer the letter. Most of this is documented in a letter by the author, published in Flagpole Magazine, Athens, Georgia, May 22, 2002 (3). She also has not replied to this article either.
A true university is a place where all opinions are discussed and presented. Regardless of whether one believes the American Cancer Society, Professor Epstein, M.D., or neither of them, all views must and deserve to be presented to an often unwitting and gullible public, especially students.
Only after hearing all sides is one likely to come to an intelligent conclusion. A so-called university is not a place for one sided propaganda, whatever the hegemony of that side, or regardless of the amounts of grant money provided to various universities by the American Cancer Society.
The new president of Ohio State University failed in her most fundamental duty as a professor and administrator at the University of Georgia, Athens. She violated the most fundamental tenet of a so-called university.
She failed to allow vital "contrary" points of view, on the subject of cancer, of vital public concern, where about one person dies every minute in the United States, to be presented to the university community and public she purports to serve.
So much for "free and open" inquiry at a university, so-called academic freedom, and so-called freedom of the press. Has so-called "higher education" degenerated to the point that administrators are now university censors?
The obvious question is: Would the trustees at Ohio State have made the same choice had this information not been withheld from them before they made their decision?
1. The Politics of Cancer Revisited, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., East Ridge Press, N.Y., 1998.
2. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: THE WORLD'S WEALTHIEST "NON-PROFIT" INSTITUTION, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., International Journal of Health Services Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 565-578, 1999.
3. What We Deserve by Winfield J. Abbe, Flagpole Magazine, www.flagpole.com , Pete McCommons, Publisher, Athens, Georgia, May 22, 2002.
Winfield J. Abbe, Ph. D., Physics Athens, Georgia
Born at Cleveland, Ohio, 1939
#2 Mar 12, 2014
Public universities in the US are flaming hotbeds of Political Correctness and degenerate diversity politics.
Censoring certain speech and writing is a a very common activity of PC mavens.
In fact, a person cannot get hired into a public university today unless they pay allegience to PC ideology.
Karen Holbrook is female diversity, and is very likely to be ideologically politically correct.
Holbrook was hired at OSU most likely because she is PC to her core.
#3 Mar 12, 2014
Thank you Pappy for your intelligent comment. The local newspaper in Athens, Georgia, The Athens Banner Herald, sought to fool the gullible and duped public about the American Cancer Society for likely the exact politically correct reasons you mention because they do not want to offend duped readers. This newspaper once held me to a strict 500 word limit for an article against the American Cancer Society, while over a period of months, they published about 11,000 words and 3 picture pages promoting this sordid organization.
Furthermore, I once offered the editors of this newspaper this challenge: If they could prove every statement about the American Cancer Society by Samuel S. Epstein, MD in the 1999 article in the International Journal of Health Services wrong, I would donate $10,000 to the ACS. The editors quietly declined the offer without notifying their readers of my offer or their rejection of it. Furthermore all they had to do if they lost the bet was to admit it in the newspaper and provide copies of the 1999 article to the public. They are not engaged in true journalism and truth and enlightenment, but lies and propaganda to fool a gullible and unwitting public and Karen Holbrook a so called "professor" is aiding and abetting all this misinformation to the public. This is shameful.
#4 Mar 12, 2014
If anyone desires to read the 1999 article documenting the corruption of the American Cancer Society, it is easily available on Dr. Epstein's website here
#5 Mar 12, 2014
Time to grow up, Pappy, and quit thinking you can insult people based on your prejudices.
#6 Mar 12, 2014
Every public university in the US has a PC diversity curricula.
Here is a small sample:
Just because you deny the existence of these college PC curriculum doesn't mean they don't exist.
Also, PC speech codes on college campuses are legendary.
Facts are not prejudice.
#8 Mar 12, 2014
Push daisies, fathead.
#9 Mar 12, 2014
Facts and reality are not your expertise, for sure.
The correct saying is "push up daisies, not "push daisies".
Hippies also push daisies into gun barrels and other orifaces, because they are smart just like you.
Dummies like you that claim demonstrable facts are bigoted prejudice are plain stupid.
#10 Mar 12, 2014
Re: Pappy - Imperious. Does not handle criticism well. Quickly resorts to name calling. Not interested in opposing points of view. Self-righteous and narrow minded. A closet multiphobe.
#11 Mar 12, 2014
Quote from above 1999 article International Journal Health Services on
The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. In fact, if every woman were to follow ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion, including at least $2.5 billion for premenopausal women. Promotions of the ACS continue to
lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure "nearly 100 percent of the time." An ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey, responded in an article published by the Massachusetts Women's
Community's journal Cancer: "The ad isn't based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point.... Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business."
In addition, the mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. DuPont also is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting mammography; produces advertising, promotional, and information literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organizations, and doctors; produces educational films; and, of course, lobbies Congress for legislation promoting availability of mammography services. In virtually all of its important actions, the ACS has been strongly linked with the mammography industry, ignoring the development of viable alternatives to mammography.
The ACS exposes premenopausal women to radiation hazards from mammography with little or no evidence of benefits. The ACS also fails to tell them that their breasts will change so much over time that the "baseline" images have little or no future relevance. This is truly an American Cancer Society crusade. But against whom, or rather, for whom? "
Also, since mammograph involves putting high energy radiation into breast tissue, this itself can cause cancer, but it is difficult if not impossible to prove. Any woman will tell you they press hard on breasts during a mammography procedure. An article in 1928 warned against pressing hard on breasts as this could cause cancer cells to move around.
Mammography is a multi billion dollar business. This is why the American Cancer Society supports it. It is all about money.
#12 Mar 12, 2014
The 1999 article in IJHS is full of similary quotes as above, documenting unethical, improper and possibly illegal activity of the American Cancer Society blantantly contrary to the public health and public interest, yet when I requested Karen Holbrook and UGA President Adams to provide a copy of the above article to everyone
participating in the Relay for Life sponsored by the ACS in Athens, in order to inform them of the sordid activities of this organization they were aiding and supporting, neither of them would require that a copy of this article be provided as a condition for participating in this on public UGA property called a "university". This failure of them is a shameful disgrace and patent violation of their fundamental duties as officers of an institution of so called "higher education" whose stated motto is "to teach, to serve, to look into the nature of things." In other words both Karen Holbrook and Mike Adams were deliberately and knowingly seeking to deceive unwitting members of the public of the sordid unethical, improper and possibly illegal activities of the corrupt American Cancer Society which was permitted to fleece money from these innocent vicims. Shouldn't Karen Holbook be sitting in a jail cell for aiding and abetting fraud of the American Public by the ACS?
But instead she was made president of Ohio State University? I think this is a public obscenity don't you? Karen Holbrook must not possess a conscience. Neither does Mike Adams. Shameful is far too polite a word to describe this total degeneration of so called higher education in the United States of America.
#13 Mar 12, 2014
You also a poor memory.
It was you that first claimed my comments were "prejudiced" (same as irrational), "insulting", and then ordered me to "grow up". I wasn't the first to resort to name calling and condescension, little lady.
To top yourself you continue to deny the facts I presented, and hurl another PC insult, multiphobe. Your word games and entitlement-princess attitude are the same noxious PC claptrap that exudes from diversity studies in public universities.
You haven't presented an opposing point of view because you appear to have no original thoughts to offer. PC buzzwords you offer are not a sign of intelligence.
You badly need to look in the mirror when you claim others are self-righteousness and narrow minded and bigoted.
#14 Mar 13, 2014
In fact, it is likely that the real reason Karen Holbrook refused to give everyone participating in the Relay for Life sponsored by the American Cancer Society is due to political correctness since she did not want to offend those duped participants who blindly and foolishly believe the lies of the American Cancer Society and she did not want to offend the ACS either lest they lose money from them. In other words, rather than advocating the truth and warning unwitting dupes that they and their health could be harmed by the corrupt American Cancer Society, Karen Holbrook allows them to be continually fooled and fleeced because Karen Holbrook does not want to offend them or possibly lose funding money from the corrupt ACS for the corrupt University of Georgia. In other words, the University of Georgia and likely Ohio State as well, are little more than houses of ill repute doing and lying to the public in patent violation of all the ethical rules. Money runs the show. These cesspools of so called higher education might as well have brothels right on campus because this is the theme of all this despicable horror in the academy.
#15 Mar 13, 2014
Check out these Politically Correct Hollywood bimbos advocating speech code censorship...
What do Beyoncé, Condoleezza Rice & Jane Lynch have in common? They've committed to ban the word bossy. Watch this Lifetime PSA to hear why.#banbossy / http://banbossy.com
The bimbo's package their proposed censorship as a Public Service Announcement.
Hollywood bimbos imagine their silly control freak fantasies are reality.
#16 Mar 13, 2014
more yapping from people afraid to listen to other points of view and yet pappy watches lifetime. not a condemnation, just an observation.
#17 Mar 13, 2014
More of the same campus PC speech code censorship promoted by diversity control freaks...
"Today’s conventional wisdom seems to be that university speech codes banning “offensive” expression on campus are a distant relic of the heyday of political correctness in the 1980s and 90s. But in truth, speech codes—university policies prohibiting expression protected by the First Amendment in society at large—are nearly as popular as ever.
This week, my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), released its annual study of campus speech codes at more than 400 of America’s largest and most prestigious colleges and universities. We found that an appalling 62 percent of institutions surveyed maintain policies that restrict a substantial amount of speech protected under the First Amendment—what we call “red light” speech codes. Such schools include Harvard, Columbia, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro."
#18 Mar 13, 2014
You have my permission to speak, little yapping control freak lady.
I don't watch Lifetime network, or any TV shows for that matter, although I'm sure Lifetime is just another victim cult exhibition and diversity group grope.
#19 Mar 14, 2014
Well, that is how the racket called conventional medicine largely works.
Take a look at the recent newly ignited mammogram debate. A good study found no benefits, but harm, from the test. The mammogram zealots attacked it with phoney accusations. Then, just about a week later another study found mammography does not reduce the incidence of advanced cancers (by the way, there exists a heap of solid data against the procedure - see The Mammogram Myth by Rolf Hefti ).
But... neither the "caring" medical industry nor the mass media hardly mentioned the critical study.
That's how it works... the mainstream medical establishment, which includes the American Cancer Society, the pink ribbon groups, their allied mass media, etc, ignores what's not amicable to their dogma and threatens their huge profits. They want you to believe their mode of operation is good science or healthcare...
#22 Mar 17, 2014
Thank you Ulbort for your intelligent comment
#25 Mar 17, 2014
sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave
you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of
your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another .... "
Dr. Ingelfinger, have you ever observed a billboard sign promoting mammograms, say, by the
American Cancer Society? Have you ever observed an advertisement, right next to such an
advertisement, opposed to mammograms? For example, advertising the risks and possible harm
from breast compression, which have been known since about 1928, or possible harm from
widely varying radiation doses of varying machines where the radiation dose is routinely not
measured or monitored, or the possibility of actually initiating the cancer process itself from a
mammogram? Suppose you, as a responsible medical doctor felt strongly about the need to
present a gullible public with "both" sides of this vital public health issue to women, and indeed,
some men as well who also contract breast cancer, went to the billboard company and sought to
pay for such a billboard advertisement at your personal expense, to be placed exactly next to that
of the American Cancer Society. What do you think would be the result? Would they accept
your advertisement? They likely would not, and you would very likely find that the only way
your advertisement could be placed on any billboard with this company would be if you
purchased the entire billboard company, and if you did, the advertisement by the American
Cancer Society would summarily be cancelled thereby preventing it from being placed next to
your advertisement, had they not already had such a stipulation in their contract anyway.
Does not this example illustrate why my letter to the editor about patent failures in scientific,
academic and intellectual integrity at the University of Georgia by a former provost, now a
president at Ohio State University, has not and will not be published in your journal? It has
nothing to do with reason or questions of verification of any statement in my letter does it? The
reasons for failing to publish my letter go beyond reason to the very criticisms of the American
Cancer Society itself by Professor Epstein; namely, to propaganda itself, do they not? The editors
of The New England Journal of Medicine certainly do not want to be a party to publicly
criticizing a new president of a large state university, let alone criticizing the American Cancer
Society Itself. So they smugly and deafeningly hide behind the shroud of silence, just like one
failing to render aid to someone injured in an accident or robbery or rape.
Therefore, The New England Journal of Medicine becomes an accomplice, as it were, a coconspirator,
a co-actor,... etc., an accessory, to the "crimes" of violations of scientific, academic
and intellectual integrity, committed by a former provost with an "advanced" degree in a
medically related field, such crimes foisted on a gullible and unwitting university student
community and public at large, for its patent and cowardly failure to warn and notify members of
the "profession" it represents, of this sordid and unconscionable behavior, whether by man or
Frankly, Dr. Ingelfinger, I could care less whether you publish my letter or not. My interest is
solely in informing the public. I thought I was fulfilling a professional obligation to warn others of untoward activities by high officials. I have no, zero, vested interest in any of this. I have
received absolutely no payment for producing this letter or the research which led to it. This all
involved much time and work on my part, and ridicule by many. My letter to Dr. Holbrook
referred to in the letter was about 40 pages, which was obviously also
Add your comments below
|Why So Seriouslady? 2.0||22 min||They cannot kill ...||12|
|Cleveland sends Tamir Rice’s estate $500 ambula...||27 min||February||55|
|Kasich largest spending governor!||29 min||They cannot kill ...||7|
|What Time Is It?||38 min||They cannot kill ...||2|
|Ferguson Sued||42 min||They cannot kill ...||21|
|Mass Machete Stabbing||2 hr||BizzyBee||37|
|BB's Current Events Thread||2 hr||d pants||276|
Find what you want!
Search Columbus Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC