Aкадемик Дородный, Виктор СеменовичАкадемик В.С. Дородный, ректор и основатель "Naturopathic Evidence-based Wellness Institute"(Институт Доказательной Интегрированной Медицины), Малибу, Калифорния с 2003 г. до настоящего времени.
Служил Вице-президентом "Ай Си Эн Фармасьютикал" (ICN, Inc.) по корпоративному развитию в Восточной Европе, и одновременно служил Иностранным Советником Фонда Развития Экономических Наук России; Иностранным Советником Министра Здравоохранения Российской Федерации; Президентом Северного Американского Отделения РусскогоНационального Фонда " ЗДОРОВЬЕ".
До 1999 г. служил Медицинским директором "Superior Consultant Company, Inc.", Детройт, Мичиган, США - единственной в мире полностью интегрированной компании по медицине, организации и управлению здравоохранением, информационным и компьютерным системам.
Сферы компетенции Академика В.С.Дородного как врача-руководителя, консультанта и успешного международного бизнесмена включают корпоративное развитие, системный анализ организации и управления компаний, инвестиции, слияние и приобретение компаний, оптимизацию активов, коммерческую разведку.
Международный эксперт по военной медицине и медицине катастроф, Командор ВМФ США в отставке, Кувейт-Ирак (1991-1992), Командующий Медицинской Службы Береговой Охраны Южной Калифорнии (2003-2005), реактивирован в 2005 для борьбы с последствиями стихийных бедствий в США.
Также служил Техническим Консультантом Всероссийского Центра Медицины Катастроф "ЗАЩИТА", Москва, Россия (1999-2003гг.), Академик В.С.Дородный удостоен грамот и наград Генштаба России за восстановление Медицинской службы Чечни (2000-2002).
Практикующий врач, ученый и практический технолог Академик В.С. Дородный является признанным международным экспертом по фармацевтической промышленности, фармацевтической экономике, по организации и управлению медициной и здравоохранением на основе систем информации и связи, системам по предоплатной медицине, по телемедицине, а также многим другим.
Академик В.С.Дородный, являясь Учредителем и Президентом компании "Неаlth PRO Worldwide,Inc." ("Интер ПРО Здоровье", Пасадена, Калифорния, США), служил с 1993 года: Консультантом по Здравоохранению Президента США; Консультантом Организации Объединённых Наций по Экономике и Социальному Развитию; Техническим Консультантом Государственного Департамента Юстиции США и Федерального Бюро Расследований; Вице-президентом Американской Национальной Организации Врачей-Организаторов Здравоохранения; Членом Комиссии Губернатора и Сената Штата Калифорния по Перестройке Здравоохранения.
В настоящее время академик В.С.Дородный является Членом Совета Директоров Американской Ассоциации Врачей-Технологов, Американской Ассоциации Крупных Врачебных Организаций; Членом Научно-Консультативной Службы Конгресса Калифорнии, Членом Совета Директоров Американского Национального Конгресса Врачей-Организаторов Здравоохранения; Почетным Членом Международного Общества по оценке применения и внедрения технологии в Медицине и Здравоохранении; Советником Национального Института Альтернативного Будущего США, Советником Американской Государственной Администрации по качеству и безопасности пищевых продуктов и лекарств (US FDA).
Доктор Медицины, окончил Медицинский Институт имени Н.И. Пирогова, Одесса, Украина; Действительный Член Международной Академии Информатизации, Женева, Швейцария; Магистр Здравоохранения; интернатура, Медицинский Факультет Университета Альберта Энштейна, Бронкс, Нью-Йорк.
Академик В.С.Дородный окончил резидентуру по Анестезиологии и Реаниматологии, Медицинский Центр Университета Южной Калифорнии,Лос Анжелес, Калифорния, является дипломантом Американской Медицинской Академии по Обезболиванию и выпускником Института Организаторов Здравоохранения, Университет Южной Калифорнии в Лос Анжелесе; Дипломант Американской Коллегии Врачей-Юристов.
Автор многочисленных статей и книг, Член Редакционного Правления многочисленных международных медицинских журналов, единственный в США врач-член Редакционного Правления крупнейших международных журналов "Information Security-Безопасность и Охрана Информации" и "US Pharmacist Американский Врач-Провизор".
Частый спикер штатных, национальных и международных конференций по Медицине и Здравоохранению. Медицинский Корреспондент Лос Анжелевского еженедельника "Herald Tribune" и комментатор Американского Радио и Телевидения.
Showing posts with label Dr.D.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr.D.. Show all posts
Monday, May 7, 2012
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
sliMDream™ ( aka triMDream™ )-Innovations in Medical Weight Control
...available to residents of Los Angeles county October 15, 2009.
This proprietary weight loss system is based upon my 34 years of clinical, academic and research experience.
Further, I incorporate up-to-date world-wide research and current recommendations by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and American College of Physicians (ACP).
sliMDream™ ( aka triMDream™ ) system is an individualized, multi-component lifestyle intervention system to optimize, stabilize and maintain height/sex/age-appropriate weight.
sliMDream™ ( aka triMDream™ ) system includes, but is not limited to, following modalities:
· behavioral modification
· suppression of appetite
· smart nutrition with energy deficit
· adequate hydration
· management of sleep patterns and stress reduction
· appropriate physical activity with energy deficit
· metabolic enhancers
· meal replacement
Please call (424) 204-5004 to be directed to a location near you to learn the essential 7 "seas" to success.
Be Well!
Dr.D.
This proprietary weight loss system is based upon my 34 years of clinical, academic and research experience.
Further, I incorporate up-to-date world-wide research and current recommendations by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and American College of Physicians (ACP).
sliMDream™ ( aka triMDream™ ) system is an individualized, multi-component lifestyle intervention system to optimize, stabilize and maintain height/sex/age-appropriate weight.
sliMDream™ ( aka triMDream™ ) system includes, but is not limited to, following modalities:
· behavioral modification
· suppression of appetite
· smart nutrition with energy deficit
· adequate hydration
· management of sleep patterns and stress reduction
· appropriate physical activity with energy deficit
· metabolic enhancers
· meal replacement
Please call (424) 204-5004 to be directed to a location near you to learn the essential 7 "seas" to success.
Be Well!
Dr.D.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Should you give (or take) a hoot?
Originally published on August 5, 2006There has always been a demand for “quick-fix”, “no-pain” weight loss pills.After the ban on the herb ephedra, the market was particularly ripe for the next new "weight loss solution", preferably one that didn't have the same stimulating side effects as ephedra.
Hoodia gordonii is also called hoodia, xhooba, khoba, Ghaap, hoodia cactus, and South African desert cactus hoodia is a cactus-like plant that's causing a stir for its ability to suppress appetite and promote weight loss.
Hoodia is commercially available in capsule, liquid extract, spray, patch or tea form in health food stores and on the Internet.
Hoodia gordonii can be found in the semi-deserts of South Africa. It grows in clumps of green upright stems and is actually a succulent, not a cactus. It takes about 5 years before hoodia's pale purple flowers appear and the cactus can be harvested.
Although there are 20 types of hoodia, only the hoodia gordonii variety is believed to contain the natural appetite suppressant.Although hoodia was "discovered" relatively recently (2005 by CBS 60 minutes), the San Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert have been eating it for a very long time.
The Bushmen, who live off the land, would cut off part of the hoodia stem and eat it to ward off hunger and thirst during nomadic hunting trips. They’ve, reportedly, also used hoodia for severe abdominal cramps, hemorrhoids, tuberculosis, indigestion, hypertension and diabetes.
In a 2004 study (Brain Res. 2004; 1020(1-2):1-11 (ISSN: 0006-8993) conducted at the Brown Medical School, Providence, RI a steroidal glycoside with anorectic activity in animals, termed P57AS3 (P57), was isolated from Hoodia gordonii and found to have homologies to the steroidal core of cardiac glycosides.
Intracerebroventricular, (seriously!) (i.c.v.) injections of the purified P57AS3 demonstrated that the compound has a likely central (CNS) mechanism of action.The studies demonstrated that the compound increases the content of ATP by 50-150% in hypothalamic neurons.
In addition, third ventricle (i.c.v.) administration of P57, which reduces subsequent 24-h food intake by 40-60%, also increases ATP content in hypothalamus.
With growing evidence of metabolic or nutrient-sensing by the hypothalamus, ATP may be a common currency of energy sensing, which in turn may trigger the appropriate neural, endocrine and appetitive responses as similar to other fundamental hypothalamic homeostatic centers for temperature and osmolarity.
In layman terms, the chemical constituents in hoodia might work within the satiety center by releasing a chemical compound similar to glucose, but are up to 100,000 times more powerful.
However, it is just a theory, for now.The hypothalamus receives this signal as an indication that enough food has been consumed and this in turn stunts the appetite.
This pure organic hoodia gordinii contains a molecule that, possibly, effects, fools the brain into believing you are full, and can even stop the brain from thinking about food-got to love this proposition!(?)
However, there is no clear and/or convincing evidence of any medicinal effects of hoodia.
Scientists at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa’s national laboratory, began studying hoodia and the initial results were promising -- lab animals lost weight after taking hoodia.
Later, the South African scientists, working in conjunction with a British company named Phytopharm, isolated the active ingredient in hoodia, a steroidal glycoside, which they named p57.Phytopharm has spent more than $20 million on hoodia research.
The company completed a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study in overweight, but otherwise healthy volunteers using the P57 extract from hoodia gordonii.The participants were split into two groups, one received the P57 and the other received a placebo. Each group was told to continue their normal diet and exercise.
The results of the study were as follows: When comparing the hoodia group to the Placebo group, the hoodia group had a statistically significant reduction in caloric intake, had a statistically significant reduction in body fat and had no adverse side effects--if it sounds to good to be true, it probably isn't!
The South African government has strictly regulated the exportation of hoodia to the rest of the world. A Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (C.I.T.I.E.S.) certificate is required to legally export hoodia gordonii from South Africa.
C.I.T.I.E.S. is an international agreement between countries design to protect and regulate international trade of wild animals and plants. Hoodia gordonii is one of those plants protected by C.I.T.I.E.S.The demand for real hoodia is great, but the supply isn't.
Until very recently, hoodia gordonii was only found in the wild in South Africa. Hoodia is difficult to grow.It requires 4-5 years to mature and temperatures in the range of 122F. The supply is scarce, which keeps costs high. (in the range of $115-160 per lb for the un-concentrated raw material).
Due to the high demand and relatively short supply, about 60% of so-called hoodia products on the market are in fact counterfeit.Reputable manufacturers make their authentication documents available for consumer inspection on-line.
There are three different ways of processing hoodia. Knowing these different ways of making hoodia products is very important: Most of the hoodia capsule products are made from powder out of hoodia plants.The whole hoodia plant is ground into a powder. Products using this method claim that since Bushmen, alegedly, ate the whole hoodia plant, it's therefore the most effective way.
However, the Bushmen actually(?) peeled away the hoodia skin and discarded it; they didn't actually eat the entire hoodia plant. This is the cheapest type of hoodia to manufacture, and most likely, the least effective.
Hoodia extract products discard the fiber and skin, that just takes up room and provides little to no positive effect. This processing method extracts and concentrates the active ingredients.
These products usually come in 20:1 or 10:1 potency levels. 20:1 means that 1 g of this extract was made by using 20 g of the whole plant and 10:1 means that 10 g of the whole plant were used to make 1 g of their extract.
The NEW Institute has conducted an "anecdotal" clinical" study with a number of informed willing patients and myself.
The bottom line: unless you are a South African lab animal or Bushmen, stick to moderation, healthy diet and exercise.
Be well!
***This article is to be used for education and general discussion purposes only. It does not constitute medical opinion and should not be used for or relied upon as medical advice. Publication of this newsletter does not create physician-patient relationship between the reader and the author. The article does not contain comprehensive description of the subject issues discussed. It is based on present medical knowledge which is subject to change and is unclear in numerous respects. Statements regarding the bio-efficacy of the nutritional supplements have not been evaluated by the FDA. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The issues discussed can not be resolved without specific analysis of the specific circumstances of each person. The readers should consult with their individual health care/wellness professional to resolve their individual situation. Regrettably, the author of this article will be unable to respond to individual questions, but will address issues of interest to the majority of our membership and the general public.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Sen. Obama supports Eugenics
On 3/23/2007 Sen. Barack Obama without much fanfare introduced Senate bill S.976 with a stated purpose “to secure the promise of personalized medicine for all Americans by expanding and accelerating genomics research and initiatives to improve the accuracy of disease diagnosis, increase the safety of drugs, and identify novel treatments”.“Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2007” among its key provisions will:
· establish the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Interagency Working Group (IWG) to facilitate collaboration, coordination, and integration of activities among federal agencies relating to genomic research and initiatives;
· establish a national biobanking distributed database for the collection and integration of genomic data and associated environmental and clinical health information;
· establish a grant program for academic medical centers and other entities to develop or expand biobanking initiatives;
· improve genetics and genomics training for diagnosis, treatment, and counseling of adults and children for both rare and common disorders;
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and to lessen human suffering.
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.
Enter “humanitarian eugenics” that strives ""to leave a genuine legacy of love to future generations: good health, high intelligence, and noble character. It advocates measures to improve the innate quality of humankind which are entirely voluntary".
Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as justification for state-sponsored discrimination; forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust.

Sen. Obama’s introduction of the Bill, coupled with availability of over the counter genetic testing in fact, advocates and promotes eugenics by creating a national genetic bank leading to definitive identification of “less-than-perfect” (LTP) Americans possibly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Since there are no clear laws or guidelines as to the ownership, storage, analysis, release, exchange and application of such information, Sen. Obama’s Bill simply invites abuses by individuals, companies and the State.
Outfits such as Future Generation and Eugenics Watch claim that :“Selection must not be left to chance for chance is cruel, capricious and, all too often, expensive but must instead be led by the kindly elite - Harvard professors, British aristocrats, Serbian psychiatrists, Aryans and so on. But death control, which has been the main method used by natural selection or chance, for termination of useless populations, must be replaced by birth control which is cheaper, and, as Charles Darwin pointed out in The Descent of Man, more effective”.
Sen. Obama obviously agrees, but prefers new massive Government bureaucracies described in his eugenics-enabling Bill to control the “selection” process and to legitimize "humane"or “positive” Governmental discrimination and eugenics.
We are making a difference (MAD), you decide!
Dr.D.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Genome Unleashed
An expert on confidentiality and security of health information, co-author of HIPAA of 1996 and a former co-Editor of "Information Security" Journal I am compelled to sound off.
For "only" $1,000. web-based startup “23andMe” offers a person an “unguided” tour of geneology offering predictions of its genetic future as well as its ancestral past. Similarly, "Navigenics" will match your genes to current medical research calculating your risk for a number of diseases.
“23andMe” was funded personally by the co-founder of Google, Sergei Brin (later repaid by Google!?) who's also married to the co-founder of 23andMe Anne Wojcicki.
Google's investment in the company is driven by its desire to obtain, control, and sell valuable information without owners’ knowledge and/or consent.
Given that the vast majority of patients are unable to comprehend the results and will have to rely on the very same companies to “translate” them, most physicians are currently untrained for genomic medicine and are ill equiped to assist patients wielding printouts indicating “variations” in a particular gene possibly leading to successful claims of medical malpractice.
Issues of genomic information ownership and release create new fertile ground for litigation.
Who owns the genomic test results? Is it the patient, testing lab, Google, patient employer, insurance company, lending institution, state and/or federal government?
Fortunately for the genomic industry, Food & Drug Administration which strictly regulates diagnostic testing for diseases, has been “slow to respond” to business practices of these companies and its consequences!
An individual can finally make a quick life-changing decision (even deadly one) based on the results of a genetic test. Armed with individuals genomic information employers can deny employment and/or promotion'; insurance companies can and will deny coverage; banks will deny loans under the justification of unreasonable business risk?
We are Making a Difference (MAD), you decide.
Dr.D.
For "only" $1,000. web-based startup “23andMe” offers a person an “unguided” tour of geneology offering predictions of its genetic future as well as its ancestral past. Similarly, "Navigenics" will match your genes to current medical research calculating your risk for a number of diseases.
“23andMe” was funded personally by the co-founder of Google, Sergei Brin (later repaid by Google!?) who's also married to the co-founder of 23andMe Anne Wojcicki.Google's investment in the company is driven by its desire to obtain, control, and sell valuable information without owners’ knowledge and/or consent.
Given that the vast majority of patients are unable to comprehend the results and will have to rely on the very same companies to “translate” them, most physicians are currently untrained for genomic medicine and are ill equiped to assist patients wielding printouts indicating “variations” in a particular gene possibly leading to successful claims of medical malpractice.
Issues of genomic information ownership and release create new fertile ground for litigation.
Who owns the genomic test results? Is it the patient, testing lab, Google, patient employer, insurance company, lending institution, state and/or federal government?
Fortunately for the genomic industry, Food & Drug Administration which strictly regulates diagnostic testing for diseases, has been “slow to respond” to business practices of these companies and its consequences!
An individual can finally make a quick life-changing decision (even deadly one) based on the results of a genetic test. Armed with individuals genomic information employers can deny employment and/or promotion'; insurance companies can and will deny coverage; banks will deny loans under the justification of unreasonable business risk?
We are Making a Difference (MAD), you decide.
Dr.D.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Great American Smokeout of just a Great Smoke Screen?
According to the results of a national survey conducted in 2006 roughly 1 in 5 adults in the US smoke cigarettes, a figure that has not changed much since 2004.The new findings, which appeared in the November 9th issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, were released in advance of Great American Smokeout, to be held this year on November 15.
About 80% of current users reported smoking every day. Roughly 44% of current smokers had made an attempt to quit smoking in previous year and had stopped for more than 1 day.
This lack of decline in cigarette smoking is accompanied by simultaneous (and growing-400 so far) proliferation of hookah bars/clubs as a "safer" social (group activity) alternative.
Smoking cessation methodology probably failed due to the fact that most laboratory studies are conducted on non-humans. Dr. Edythe London, a leading researcher at UCLA, recently admitted in her Op-Ed article in LA Times that animal tobacco dependency model is completely different from that of humans.
Even Dr.London might concede that animals (primates) in the wild can rarely be found in hookah bars surrounded by the rest of the pack equipped with laptops.
In a recent (November 7, 2007) article in the LA Times by Animal Liberation Front (ALF) spokeswoman Lindy Greene claims that “data from one species cannot be extrapolated to another with more than 5% to 25% accuracy”
With 30% being within the acceptable margin of error for any study, Dr. London’s “esteemed” animal research is nothing more than a very expensive (for taxpayers and consumers) guesstimating.
Animal researchers, driven by quest for publishable data and financial well-being, solely dependent on grants from corrupt manufacturers, might do better by just flipping a coin--50% success rate.
Further, the study claims that smoking prevalence differed by gender and race: 23.9% of men vs. 18.0% of women smoked and 10.4% of Asians vs. 21.9% of whites were smokers. In addition, smoking prevalence fell as educational level rose and increased with poverty.
Studies at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences demonstrated that despite African-American children's having a lower exposure to tobacco compared to whites, they have higher levels of serum nicotine than white children.
Further studies are needed to determine whether there are racial differences in the metabolism of other tobacco-related toxins and to assess the efficacy of interventions to reduce ETS exposure among all children.
Race is not a definitive biologic construct, but rather an imprecise arbitrary categorization that is a proxy for multifaceted cross-connected environmental, cultural, socioeconomic, and biologic variables almost insurmountable in its complexity.
I dare Dr. London & Co. to account for all of the critical variables and to publicly admit that animal research can be only approximated, at best, to humans--a far cry from human-relevant data!?
The absurdity of continued animal research is propagated by unscrupulous pharmaceutical manufacturers, their “pet” scientists and the FDA despite the multiple thousands of consumer injuries and deaths every year from adverse reactions to drugs tested "safe" in animals (VIOXX any one?) and, conversely, causes potentially beneficial drugs tested "unsafe" to be discarded.
ALF’s methodology of protecting “creatures that society would arbitrarily place outside the circle of moral compassion and beyond the reach of effective defense” fails to properly use science to educate general public through mass media.
I firmly believe that only a strong outcry form educated public coupled with public refusal to buy products implicated in animal testing/abuse can make a tangible difference for the animals.
We are MAD, you decide!
Dr.D.
P.S. Making a Difference---MAD
Labels:
ALF,
animal research,
children,
data,
Dorodny,
Dr. Dorodny,
Dr. London,
Dr.D.,
hookah,
human research,
primates,
Smoking Control
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Where do I stand on the issues of animal research.
I am a relatively new, at least publicly, opponent of animal research.
First, and foremost, I unconditionally condemn violence in any shape or form against individuals, organizations and/or their property. Further, I believe that attacks on researchers and their institution by some radical groups seriously undermines their own credibility as well as the legitimacy of mainstream organizations.
Hence, I am not and will never be associated with any individuals, groups and/or organizations that either commit, promote or condone violence as means to achieve their goals.
Second, my objections to animal research are purely scientific since animal-based research is foundationally flawed. Data obtained from animal research data can not be extrapolated to manufacture human-relevant information. There are numerous viable alternatives to produce human-specific data without the use and abuse of animals.
In additional to cell preparations, transgenic modeling, and live human volunteers (please see my early postings on the issue), yet another alternative to using ill-suited animal models could be the use of aborted fetuses and tissues and organs from recently deceased humans.
Fetuses aborted during the first trimester (legally one can do it only up to 10 weeks) provide a representative sample of tissues needed for the study of most biological processes.
I am referring only to fetuses that are already legally aborted. I will neither condone nor condemn legal abortion or legality of abortion.
Organs and tissues could be "kept alive" in recently deceased humans and then used for the studies of toxicity mechanisms.
For example: instead of sacrificing 40-50 rats and "blending" their livers to study the toxicity of alcohol, one can use the liver of a car-crash victim for the same purpose but with better results that are actually applicable to human physiology and relevant to studies of human disease model.
Despite my personal and professional objections to tactics and actions sometimes employed by the Animal Liberation Movement, and my disagreement with the published statements of its Press Officer Dr. Jerry Vlasak, I felt compelled to object to Los Angeles Times Editorial policies and actions and its childish mistreatment of Jerry Vlasak, MD, FACS.
Here is a copy of my "surprisingly" unpublished letter to the Editors of LA Times of November 2, 2007:
"Editors,
When the only paper in Los Angeles market decides to take a position on animal research (or any other issue) instead of reporting, and decides to suppress opposing views of similarly qualified professionals it should not be surprised with its shrinking circulation and profits.
LA Times made an editorial decision to condone animal testing and to deprive its readership from any formation about many scientifically valid ways to rapidly diminish and/or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals.
Your publication of Dr. Vlasak's letter with the intentional omission of his professional titles and affiliations does not limit his credibility but does place the shame on you. Not extending this common courtesy to Dr. Vlasak while affording it to all other authors again proves your bias and, in fact diminishes your paper credibility and will hopefully result in further financial losses for the paper.
Intelligent compassionate people of LA enabled by the Internet will find the truth and spread the word."
First, and foremost, I unconditionally condemn violence in any shape or form against individuals, organizations and/or their property. Further, I believe that attacks on researchers and their institution by some radical groups seriously undermines their own credibility as well as the legitimacy of mainstream organizations.
Hence, I am not and will never be associated with any individuals, groups and/or organizations that either commit, promote or condone violence as means to achieve their goals.
Second, my objections to animal research are purely scientific since animal-based research is foundationally flawed. Data obtained from animal research data can not be extrapolated to manufacture human-relevant information. There are numerous viable alternatives to produce human-specific data without the use and abuse of animals.

In additional to cell preparations, transgenic modeling, and live human volunteers (please see my early postings on the issue), yet another alternative to using ill-suited animal models could be the use of aborted fetuses and tissues and organs from recently deceased humans.
Fetuses aborted during the first trimester (legally one can do it only up to 10 weeks) provide a representative sample of tissues needed for the study of most biological processes.
I am referring only to fetuses that are already legally aborted. I will neither condone nor condemn legal abortion or legality of abortion.
Organs and tissues could be "kept alive" in recently deceased humans and then used for the studies of toxicity mechanisms.
For example: instead of sacrificing 40-50 rats and "blending" their livers to study the toxicity of alcohol, one can use the liver of a car-crash victim for the same purpose but with better results that are actually applicable to human physiology and relevant to studies of human disease model.
Despite my personal and professional objections to tactics and actions sometimes employed by the Animal Liberation Movement, and my disagreement with the published statements of its Press Officer Dr. Jerry Vlasak, I felt compelled to object to Los Angeles Times Editorial policies and actions and its childish mistreatment of Jerry Vlasak, MD, FACS.
Here is a copy of my "surprisingly" unpublished letter to the Editors of LA Times of November 2, 2007:
"Editors,
When the only paper in Los Angeles market decides to take a position on animal research (or any other issue) instead of reporting, and decides to suppress opposing views of similarly qualified professionals it should not be surprised with its shrinking circulation and profits.
LA Times made an editorial decision to condone animal testing and to deprive its readership from any formation about many scientifically valid ways to rapidly diminish and/or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals.
Your publication of Dr. Vlasak's letter with the intentional omission of his professional titles and affiliations does not limit his credibility but does place the shame on you. Not extending this common courtesy to Dr. Vlasak while affording it to all other authors again proves your bias and, in fact diminishes your paper credibility and will hopefully result in further financial losses for the paper.
Intelligent compassionate people of LA enabled by the Internet will find the truth and spread the word."
We are MAD, you decide!
Dr.D.
P.S. Making a Difference! (MAD)
Labels:
Animal,
Dorodny,
Dr.D.,
Dr.Dorodny,
human research,
human volunteers,
LA Times,
MDA,
research,
Vlasak
Monday, November 5, 2007
"Why do I use animals in research" or " Why do I abduct, detain, confine, mutilate, torture and kill animals" by Dr. E. London
Unfortunately for animals used in research Dr. London conducts those sadistic actions without animals expressed consent to participate in her research activities.
The damage inflicted to Dr. London's residence is stupid and reprehensible. Dr. London's fight against addiction to nicotine, methamphetamine and other drugs is admirable. Her use of primates and other animals is incomprehensible. Her justifications for use of animals in non-clinical research could not further away from truth.
Further, she deliberately avoids discussion of non-animal research options such as cell cultures, transgenic modeling and human volunteers to name a few.
Human volunteers recruited among prison inmates, well meaning researchers, executives of pharmaceutical and tobacco companies and their respective family members can provide a new dimension to research--subject's reporting, interactive feedback and ability to follow instructions.
Properly designed and conducted human volunteers study, with preference given to aforementioned groups, will reveal human-specific, hence human-relative data.
These (human) studies are much more likely to be conducted in an ethical and cruelty-free manner, with proper consent, compensation (except for inmates), pain relief, psychological counselling and treatment of any and all complications and adverse outcomes. ACLU can monitor compliance.
In her article Dr. London contradicts herself stating that “While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become “addicted” in the same sense that human…” So why torture monkeys and other animals when there are millions of potential human volunteers stupid enough to subject themselves to tobacco and other addictive substances.
Such (human) studies will invariably yield human-specific hence human-relevant information.
Being a child of Holocaust does not give one a license to inflict Holocaust on animals by using them in research. If nothing else it should have made Dr. London more sensitive to the plight of the weak and defenseless.
Without condoning violence in any shape or form I would like to point out that use and abuse of animals is UCLA researchers is funded and promoted by greedy pharmaceutical companies, such as Amgen that is in serious financial straits due to recent changes in reimbursement for its drugs.
In addition to promoting and conducting animal research (Amgen maintains an extensive vivarium where animals are routinely used for research) by UCLA through its clandestine invitation-only seminars promoting animal research (last conducted October 28, 2007) Amgen simultaneously taints the objectivity and validity of researcher conducted by UCLA.
Hiding behind frequently used and abused "unrestricted educational grant" can not fool any one, Hence, Dr. London's acceptance of tobacco company's money seriously jeopardises UCLA's standing as an "independent third party" seeker of truth!?
I challenge UCLA officials, leadership of Amgen, leadership of tobacco companies, and prominent researches to open a productive dialogue with mainstream activist to reduce and finally eliminate use of animals in research ( and related abuse and exploitation) in favor of genetic modeling and/or use of human volunteers.
We are MAD, you decide.
Dr.D.
The damage inflicted to Dr. London's residence is stupid and reprehensible. Dr. London's fight against addiction to nicotine, methamphetamine and other drugs is admirable. Her use of primates and other animals is incomprehensible. Her justifications for use of animals in non-clinical research could not further away from truth.
Further, she deliberately avoids discussion of non-animal research options such as cell cultures, transgenic modeling and human volunteers to name a few.
Human volunteers recruited among prison inmates, well meaning researchers, executives of pharmaceutical and tobacco companies and their respective family members can provide a new dimension to research--subject's reporting, interactive feedback and ability to follow instructions.
Properly designed and conducted human volunteers study, with preference given to aforementioned groups, will reveal human-specific, hence human-relative data.
These (human) studies are much more likely to be conducted in an ethical and cruelty-free manner, with proper consent, compensation (except for inmates), pain relief, psychological counselling and treatment of any and all complications and adverse outcomes. ACLU can monitor compliance.
In her article Dr. London contradicts herself stating that “While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become “addicted” in the same sense that human…” So why torture monkeys and other animals when there are millions of potential human volunteers stupid enough to subject themselves to tobacco and other addictive substances.

Such (human) studies will invariably yield human-specific hence human-relevant information.
Being a child of Holocaust does not give one a license to inflict Holocaust on animals by using them in research. If nothing else it should have made Dr. London more sensitive to the plight of the weak and defenseless.
Without condoning violence in any shape or form I would like to point out that use and abuse of animals is UCLA researchers is funded and promoted by greedy pharmaceutical companies, such as Amgen that is in serious financial straits due to recent changes in reimbursement for its drugs.
In addition to promoting and conducting animal research (Amgen maintains an extensive vivarium where animals are routinely used for research) by UCLA through its clandestine invitation-only seminars promoting animal research (last conducted October 28, 2007) Amgen simultaneously taints the objectivity and validity of researcher conducted by UCLA.
Hiding behind frequently used and abused "unrestricted educational grant" can not fool any one, Hence, Dr. London's acceptance of tobacco company's money seriously jeopardises UCLA's standing as an "independent third party" seeker of truth!?
I challenge UCLA officials, leadership of Amgen, leadership of tobacco companies, and prominent researches to open a productive dialogue with mainstream activist to reduce and finally eliminate use of animals in research ( and related abuse and exploitation) in favor of genetic modeling and/or use of human volunteers.
We are MAD, you decide.
Dr.D.
Labels:
Amgen,
animals,
Dorodny,
Dr. London,
Dr.D.,
Dr.Dorodny,
human volunteers,
UCLA
Monday, October 29, 2007
Practical Alternative to Animal Research, or What Amgen Does Not Want You to Know?
Sporadic displays of animal cruelty by the likes of Michael Vick and Ellen DeGeneres usually get plenty of media coverage and generate necessary public outcry. 
However, ongoing acts of animal abuse committed under the auspices of scientific necessity to “ensure and enhance human and animal health and protection of the environment” remain unnoticed by media and general public (1).
The justification used by researchers for use of animal-only model studies can be found in a handout distributed by Dr. Robert F. Phalen(2) during his clandestine lecture at Amgen, Inc. Corporate HQ October 28, 2007:
“…there is no more powerful tool for protecting human health than the combination of well conducted animal experiments and well conducted epidemiological experiments” Rall (1979).
“…a large number of values for man coincided with remarkable accuracy for the 70 kg animal”, Krasovski (1976).
“…these survey results support the value of in vivo toxicology studies to predict for many human toxicities associated with pharmaceuticals…”, Olson et all. (2000).
“…the human genome is remarkably similar to that of evolutionary ancient organism. Thus, the various life forms on earth share much more in common than anyone had previously envisioned”. Ballatori and Vilalobos (2002).
The Society of Toxicology (SOT) claims that research involving laboratory animals is “necessary” and that “research animals must be used in a responsible manner”. Therefore, according to Dr. Phalen, it is “…unethical to block or impede well-designed, humane animal studies”.
Unfortunately for animals, and despite the alleged strict adherence to the rules and regulations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) [P.L. 89-544] and the Health Research Extension Act [P.L.99-158] all animal studies in the world are missing a critical component— informed consent.
Interestingly, both the SOT and Dr. Phalen concede that there are major anatomical differences between humans, mammals, and other laboratory animals that might render results obtained from animal studies to be of limited value.
The SOT and most scientists further concede that animal studies proven less than reliable because in addition to anatomical and resulting physiological (functioning) differences, lifespan of laboratory animals is short; human disease models are generally poor; appropriate “metrics” are poorly understood; mass alone is seldom used; dosage comparisons across species are difficult (3); and individual differences are extremely large.
There are many exciting promising ways to conduct laboratory studies without use of laboratory animals.
With the entire sequence of human genome now deciphered, specific human genetic mutations might be induced and quantified in a cell culture; using organism into which human genes have been incorporated (transgenic systems) and many others. Such methods will enable the scientist to use solid experimental evidence to predict human diseases without use and abuse of animals.
Pending development and practical implementation of these technologies, the SOT’s
stated goal “…scientifically-valid research design to reduce, refine or replace the need for laboratory animals” falls short of offering the only logical solution—use of human volunteers with proper informed consent.
With the high and ever-rising costs of “housing” inmates in our jail system ($45,000.00 per inmate per year in California) and a burgeoning prison population, there is an untapped resource of human volunteers who might be willing and ready to redeem themselves by participating in laboratory studies.
Given prisons being a true society reflection, scientists should not have any problems recruiting age, race, size, gender-diverse volunteers willing to contribute.
Accurate human-derived (hence human-relevant) data can rapidly diminish or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals now used and abused to ensure and enhance human health and protection of the environment.
We are MAD, you decide!
Dr.D.
___________________________________________________________________
1. The Society of Toxicology (SOT) 1821 Michael Faraday Dr., Suite 300, Reston, VA 21090;
phone (703) 438-31135; fax (703) 438-3113; sothq@toxicology.org;
http://www.toxicology.org/
2. Robert F. Phalen, PhD, Professor of Community & Environmental Medicine, College of
Medicine, Univ. of California Irvine CA.
3. Jarabek et al., 2005; Kuempel et al., 2006

However, ongoing acts of animal abuse committed under the auspices of scientific necessity to “ensure and enhance human and animal health and protection of the environment” remain unnoticed by media and general public (1).
The justification used by researchers for use of animal-only model studies can be found in a handout distributed by Dr. Robert F. Phalen(2) during his clandestine lecture at Amgen, Inc. Corporate HQ October 28, 2007:
“…there is no more powerful tool for protecting human health than the combination of well conducted animal experiments and well conducted epidemiological experiments” Rall (1979).
“…a large number of values for man coincided with remarkable accuracy for the 70 kg animal”, Krasovski (1976).
“…these survey results support the value of in vivo toxicology studies to predict for many human toxicities associated with pharmaceuticals…”, Olson et all. (2000).
“…the human genome is remarkably similar to that of evolutionary ancient organism. Thus, the various life forms on earth share much more in common than anyone had previously envisioned”. Ballatori and Vilalobos (2002).
The Society of Toxicology (SOT) claims that research involving laboratory animals is “necessary” and that “research animals must be used in a responsible manner”. Therefore, according to Dr. Phalen, it is “…unethical to block or impede well-designed, humane animal studies”.
Unfortunately for animals, and despite the alleged strict adherence to the rules and regulations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) [P.L. 89-544] and the Health Research Extension Act [P.L.99-158] all animal studies in the world are missing a critical component— informed consent.
Interestingly, both the SOT and Dr. Phalen concede that there are major anatomical differences between humans, mammals, and other laboratory animals that might render results obtained from animal studies to be of limited value.The SOT and most scientists further concede that animal studies proven less than reliable because in addition to anatomical and resulting physiological (functioning) differences, lifespan of laboratory animals is short; human disease models are generally poor; appropriate “metrics” are poorly understood; mass alone is seldom used; dosage comparisons across species are difficult (3); and individual differences are extremely large.
There are many exciting promising ways to conduct laboratory studies without use of laboratory animals.
With the entire sequence of human genome now deciphered, specific human genetic mutations might be induced and quantified in a cell culture; using organism into which human genes have been incorporated (transgenic systems) and many others. Such methods will enable the scientist to use solid experimental evidence to predict human diseases without use and abuse of animals.
Pending development and practical implementation of these technologies, the SOT’s
stated goal “…scientifically-valid research design to reduce, refine or replace the need for laboratory animals” falls short of offering the only logical solution—use of human volunteers with proper informed consent.
With the high and ever-rising costs of “housing” inmates in our jail system ($45,000.00 per inmate per year in California) and a burgeoning prison population, there is an untapped resource of human volunteers who might be willing and ready to redeem themselves by participating in laboratory studies.
Given prisons being a true society reflection, scientists should not have any problems recruiting age, race, size, gender-diverse volunteers willing to contribute.
Accurate human-derived (hence human-relevant) data can rapidly diminish or totally eliminate the need for laboratory animals now used and abused to ensure and enhance human health and protection of the environment.
We are MAD, you decide!
Dr.D.
___________________________________________________________________
1. The Society of Toxicology (SOT) 1821 Michael Faraday Dr., Suite 300, Reston, VA 21090;
phone (703) 438-31135; fax (703) 438-3113; sothq@toxicology.org;
http://www.toxicology.org/
2. Robert F. Phalen, PhD, Professor of Community & Environmental Medicine, College of
Medicine, Univ. of California Irvine CA.
3. Jarabek et al., 2005; Kuempel et al., 2006
Labels:
abuse,
Amgen,
Animal,
cruelty,
Dorodny,
Dr.D.,
Dr.Dorodny,
human volunteers,
MAD,
Society of Toxicology,
SOT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)