Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 23-April-2004, Vol 117 No 1192

Prostate screening

It took about 20 years for the cervical screening of women to be proved
of value to women. Smear campaigns do not diagnose cancer. This will
never happen for men's prostate because it is being proscribed. (Perhaps
saving the Government money could be the main reason - biased research
has always been suspect.)

What has happened to the principle of the early diagnosis of malignancy?
Let the facts of epidemiological science be as they say. The need for men
to have freedom and support for their health needs, should be obvious.
Let the patient find whether there is cancer, and then decide any treatment.

Do we now have an ethic which says "the Government has found that the
diagnosis and the various treatments are so onerous that it will not permit
(pay for) this established clinical condition to be decided by the
patient/doctor - it, the Government, will decide what is best" ?

Perhaps the power and success of political correctness has gone to their
heads so they can use it to control the thinking, experience, and
freedoms of the doctor and patients. They plan to "educate both the
people and the doctors". Will we have a report on how successful the
campaign has been, and what it cost?

Will our medical profession, and our Association lie down, agreeing that
this is yet another place were the Government can save money for more
important things in the health budget?

I not only cringe but feel like crying for those men and their families who
will find they have ongoing cancer (diagnosed only when signs and symptoms
appear), when it could have been found much earlier - but for the actions
of the controlling authorities.

Bruce Conyngham
Retired specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology
Coatesville, Auckland

>FROM MY COLLEAGUE TO WHOM I SENT YOUR DISCUSSION PAPER - B

a minor point - it isn't a mere 'discussion paper' but one pubd
after discussion at a symposium.

>> Thanks for the article on biology, final causes, etc.
>>
>> Although biology is a field I've never studied, and never read much in,
>>I've had a feeling for a long time that our human accounts of evolution can
>>?never
>> be fully satisfactory until they somehow take account of the concept of
>> purpose or destination - the eye, or the ear or the sense of smell could
>> not have given the possessor any advantage over competing creatures until
>>it was fairly fully developed.
>>
>>But I think an explanation has to be developed from within science, in
>> science's terms, and cannot be grafted on from Aristotle or from
>>religion.
>> So I'm not convinced that Dr Mann's line of approach is likely to be
>> productive.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> D.

Well of course this is just naked scientism - the pretence that
scientific knowledge is the only type of knowledge. The particular form of
that fallacy in this example is Dawkins' refusal to ackn cause beyond
material & efficient.

It is not possible to live by such a pretence - merely an
atheistic evasion of obvious reality.

By all means pass this along to your evasive buddy. It is,
frankly, hard to respect any thinker who clings to scientism.

cheers

R

The full text of news items is only available to Members.
For membership details check http://www.rsnz.org/members/join.php

Please send news releases, etc to: news@rsnz.org

Items Web-mounted on Wednesday, 5 May 2004
http ://www.rsnz.org/news/date/2004/5/5

Survey finds consumers duped by deceptive fish labelling
The DNA survey found fish substitution is common in Australia

Genetic variation for heart attack risk found
More common in people who have had a heart attack and linked to the
protein galectin-2

Don't treat some women with pre-cancer cervical changes - study
The National Women's Hospital research, published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association, is the first major study of precancerous
cervical disease since the Cartwright Report

---

RM comments:

That headline summarizes what G H Green - and most other leading
gynaecologists - were saying in the 1960s. It was justified then, and
it's justified now. Cartwright, Fiddler Bunkum, Koney, Bonita Banana etc
were & are wrong - and viciously so.

Contrast with:

Items Web-mounted on Thursday, 1 April 2004
http ://www.rsnz.org/news/date/2004/4/1

Backing for no prostate screening

The Cancer Society and the NZ Medical Association have backed the
National Health Committee's recommendation against a screening programme
for prostate cancer in men

Prostate treatment can be worse than disease - NHC
Says tests aren't reliable enough

---

This Poutasi line is promulgated assiduously by wimps such as Ben
Gray M.B (see Listener May 15 p.7) and Michael Baker M.B who produced a
minor periodical in the public health field which he used to oppose PSA
screening. I sent him - repeatedly, as he never ackn it - a brief
paper making the case for PSA screening.

Baker's refusal to ackn is highly significant. It is a good
example of the refusal to discuss which characterises PC ideology (sexism,
racism, & militant hxism). M Wilson, Ms H Fletcher CJ, etc show this
totalitarian attitude. They feel so ideologically correct that they refuse
to discuss their ideas.

This is rightly analogised to the Nazis. A key test for wimpism is
heated complaint about the term feminazism.

The unquestioned TV authority on the risks & benefits of hormone
replacement therapy turns out to be Ms Coney who had previously campaigned
against HRT but now condemns this over-the-counter cream version as
terribly untested whereas she fully understands, pros & cons, and is now
apparently tolerating, the usual oral HRT.

This "expert" gained power by posing as more expert than a
much-loved specialist in the medical school and the leading women's
teaching hospital. With Bunkle and Cartwright she advocated sampling
women's private parts for a test which was a notoriously poor predictor of
cancer. This Pap smear had been widely adopted already, and played some
part in diagnosis by specialists, but was not much use.

Now this weak test uses $35M/y to reach, sometimes by lay
smear-takers, 90% of the relevant women. The NZ death rate from cancer of
the cervix has been falling gradually for some decades; is now as low as 90
deaths each year; and has not been noticeably affected by the Pap smear
screening.

Nearly all the new media items on O&G since 1987 are generated by
someone with no medical qualifications. Rewards for these usurpations are
large: the main impostor is now Governor-general, another became a list-MP
but retreated to Mongolia accused of filching from the public purse,
another is an Auckland Regional Councillor and has been able to get The
Lancet to publish sporadic columns of her opinions. One of the originators
of this crazy racket is now head of the WHO non-infectious diseases
division.

As a secondary effect, midwives have been treated as more important
authorities on O&G than, for instance, a highly respectable FRCOG and
chairman of the NZ Medical Association. Almost all GPs have abandoned
obstetrics; midwives collecting large subsidies routinely fail to arrange
specialist backup at National Women's Hospital. These trends will have
harmed a certain number of mothers and babies.

In that context, it is less surprising that a far better screening
test, for the only fast-increasing large category of cancer in NZ lately
(killing not 80 but 600/y) is maligned & impeded by the Poutasi machine and
its front-wimps.

An outline I broadcast on The Men's Hour, Access Radio, 8-12-97:

>Cancer of the prostate kills 600 New Zealanders per year, but research on
>causes & treatments is negligible. This is the only fast-growing large
>category of cancer in New Zealand lately, and is already far more
>important than female genital cancers - cancer of the cervix has been
>fairly steady, killing about 90 per year. The cervical screening
>programme of Mss Bunkle, Cartwright & Coney , now reaching over 80% of the
>relevant women with a so-called early warning test which is of little or
>no use, actually causes indirect harm, but continues to spend $6M/y
>nationwide - about $2M/y in the Auckland region. Meanwhile, a genuine
>early-warning test for cancer - of the prostate - gets a subsidy of
>$0.038M/y for the Auckland region, and even this paltry $38,000 has been
>threatened with decrease.
>

That 6M/y has now ballooned out to $35M/y. As mentioned in 1997,
the pathologist in charge of the PSA assays for the Auckland region (in the
Ak Public hospital) had been accosted in an attempt to cut his budget.

PSA is only a screening test, not a diagnostic test. But a reading
below 1 is reassuring evidence that the gland is in good order, whereas say
6 is an alert meaning the gland should be urgently scanned by hi-res
ultrasound to look for tumours. Only then should biopsy needles be
inserted - and guided by ultrasound. If cancer is disgnosed, surgery to
remove the gland is difficult, with fairly high risk of side-effects e.g
impotence; but it can prevent secondaries from killing the man.

PSA readings around 5 can be produced by mere enlargement of the
gland, and are far from conclusive. They should however be followed up by
ultrasound.

Denial of PSA screening really is the crime that National Women's
Hospital was so wrongfully accused of - withholding medical services that
could be reasonably provided.

It is so irrational that many will find it hard to follow, but
cancer of the genitalia has become a battle ground in ideological warfare.
There is a loose wonky distorted mirror-image relationship between the
expensive, low-accuracy Pap smear and the cheap, high-accuracy PSA
screening test.

Just to emphasize the irrationality so typical of totalitarian
trends, the Poutasi machine has lately declared the PSA test to be of low
*accuracy* - a ludicrous notion not previously heard.

Today's Headlines
ENN DAILY NEWS
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-05-04/s_22951.asp
EarthTalk: Are there any safe, nontoxic garden herbicides?

- There are now several natural herbicides on the market. One of the
most effective natural ingredients is corn gluten meal, a yellow powder
that is a waste product of the corn milling process.

While the meal has been used in dog, fish, and other animal foods for
years, it has only recently been marketed as a natural herbicide. As
researchers at Iowa State University's (ISU) Horticulture Department
discovered, the material naturally inhibits the growth of seeds' initial
root systems, while doing no harm to already established plants.

ISU researchers say that once vegetables or flowers have their first
true leaves, corn gluten meal can be safely and effectively applied to kill
weeds. ISU scientists also note that, because corn gluten meal is high in
nitrogen, it is beneficial to surrounding plants, doubling as a fertilizer.

It has been reported that corn gluten meal is particularly effective
against dandelions, pigweed, crabgrass, plantain, and curly dock. ISU
scientists suggest an application rate of 20 pounds per 1,000 square feet
and they say the product remains effective for five to six weeks.
Researchers say that corn gluten meal should be applied to lawns about
three to five weeks before weeds begin to grow.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Pesticide
Programs urges people to decrease the amount of chemical herbicides used to
battle weeds. There are already more than 865 active ingredients
registered for use in pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. About 350
pesticide products, including herbicides, are used on the foods we eat and
to ward off pests from our homes and pets. But pesticides and herbicides
often contain toxic substances that are harmful to human and ecological
health.

ChemFree+ is one brand of herbicide that uses corn gluten meal.
Available from Chem Free Lawns, it is advertised as both a natural weed
control and fertilizer for lawns and gardens and harmless to people, pets,
groundwater, insects, and soil microorganisms. Comparable products include
Dynaweed from the American Natural Products Company and "A-Maize-N" from
Planet Natural.

--------------

< For those who judge a technology by its organisational origins
&/or control, and for those who predict from past misbehaviour of big
gangs, the USA maize-ethanol-gasohol-DDG etc industry, controlled by such
little-known big gangs as Archer Daniels Midland corp, any new 'OK'
byproduct should be viewed with scepticism. I can predict many scientists,
let alone others, would feel it's a remote chance that corn gluten meal
would turn out to contain novel chemicals capable of poisoning e.g
predatory ladybirds that normally keep insect pests in check. But that's
entirely plausible in view of the Showa Denko GM-bacilli. One or more
maize GM-mutant might turn out to be toxic in some sense, if it were
properly examined; and the CGM from that mutant strain might contain most
or all of the toxin(s).

I predicted the USA govt would dump on starving Africans the
millions-of tons stockpiles of USA GM-maize rejected by Europe where
GM-maize is not permitted for human consumption. Refusal of some African
govts to accept these dumps has been one of the most heartening aspects of
the past half-decade. Those govts, like Prince Charles, understand GMOs
far more than your typical media stooges or govts brainwashed by
gene-jiggering corps.

Activism for conservation has a larger turnover than when I got
into it (before Greepneace), but is far less nimble - not on the balls of
its feet but rocked back on its heels or groping around in a fog of
ideology. The work of Greenpeace NZ on toxic chemicals was shut down by a
lesbian/racist power-play, so that the firm has rarely been able to respond
in an informed way to new queries about chemical health hazards.

Who will tell us about the testing of CGM? How well tested was
CGM, in its role as a natural herbicide, before the glut of GM-maize? What
chemical differences have been found in this or that GM-maize? What
biological properties of the GM-CGM have been studied?

I am suggesting that any attempt by ADM et al to add value of a
byproduct must be viewed with some awareness of the gangs in the particular
industry. The most lavish offices I saw in DC 2 decade ago were those of
the gasohol industry, right handy on the foothills of Capitol Hill.
Extending petrol with ethanol is a reasonable way to increase
knock-resistance dubious process. The resulting fuel, gasohol, containing
about 10% alcohol, is OK as a fuel; but there are other ways of boosting
knock-resistance (my favourite is water-injection), and it should be
clearly understood that energy farming as done by agribusiness absorbs more
energy (mostly as dieseline) than it produces in that fuel. Energy farming
is an energy sink, not a net energy producer.

If ethanol were produced as a byproduct of some valuable food, that
might be OK. But to grow maize for the prime purpose of making ethanol is
a misconceived process. So any value-added byproduct of this process
should be appraised carefully - it might help to make more profit, but we
should be wary of byproducts from misconceived industries. (The main
ethanol factory in NZ uses byproduct whey from the world's biggest casein
factory, which also features a 3MW biogas generator as the first stage of
the wastewater treatment.)

OK class, that was today's routine item. Now here's a more arcane
problem: why don't the oil/chemical complexes produce bulk ethanol? Bulk
two-carbon compounds arise in petrochemical processing complexes, which
often adjoin refineries; is it really uneconomic to convert some to the
2-carbon alcohol?

R

I mentioned to the excellent Boris Pavlov, former V-C U of
Leningrad, now a prof of math U of Ak, the lack of articles 'a' & 'the' in
his native language.

He responded with the following gasser:-

Academician Prigogine, after he had won a Nobel prize,
found himself during a conference going down in a hotel lift with a Russian
who looked at his wrist, saw that he'd left his watch in his room, and
consequently asked Prigogine:

'Vot is time?'

Prigogine took this English question at face value, and replied
'That is a very interesting, profound question; I think
about it daily.'

Like the rest of us, however, he could not essay an answer.

This is an extreme case of the general being much more difficult than the
particular - a distinction blurred by lack of articles. No wonder
Russians lorsk Cold Var!

R

The headroom within which satire can operate is further decreased
by this couple Kräute.

Get in the mood and add further comments.

R

>INVESTING IN BIOTECH: HOW TO MAKE A FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF THE VENTURE
>
>Scientist Live
>December 2002
>
>http://www.scientistlive.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?id=2295
>
>In the cold current climate of fundraising - what does the dedicated biotech
>investor look for?
>
>Thomas Tscherning and Jesper Zeuthen report.
>
>The rising demand for both high-quality fundamentals - good products under
>development, for example

yes; what would be an example? From PPL's prdkt pipeline, for
example ... rhAAT, perhaps? Tell us about the FlavrSavr® - we've not
yet seen a scientific account of that good prdkt. Why was the NuLeaf® potato
withdrawn?

> and fair valuations for biotech investment cases -

again, some mention of an actual case would be helpful; I don't
know of one

>has in turn put extra pressure on the biotech entrepreneur, who has to live
>up to a certain standard in order to receive financing.
>What does a dedicated
>biotech investor look for in a project?
>Key points are:
>* Focused R&D on products for human therapy (not selling 'informatics' or
>provide services).

why not? haven't they been about the only profitable (fringe)
aspect of the gene-jiggerer era?

>* Proof-of-principle in several animal experiments. Significance levels and
>prognosis of model for later human trials should be addressed.
>* A strong intellectual property position (freedom-to-operate, utility,
>uniqueness).
>* A market ('unfulfilled need') easily quantified and addressed/serviced.
>u A
>competitive edge over other players (positioning).
>* Development and risk is quantifiable and can be handled by small,
>incremental steps in a reasonable
>timescale at reasonable expense. Are fall-back options identified if
>projects
>fail. Can projects be out-licensed at many different phases (diversifies
>risk).
>* Step-up in valuation of the entity through time is fair and modest -
>then it is feasable to raise finance in the future in a sustained fashion.
>Does both the current owners and the future investors receive the same
>comparable return over time and adjusted for risk?
>* The most important: management has built successful companies before -
>and will do it again.
>Competencies needed are identified and connected to identified people (who
>does what and when with what degree of responsability/accountability).

>Venture investors live in a competitive world just like the entrepreneurs.

could have fooled me - they're all just pouring venture capital
to the computer trade, the kits mfrs, the instrument mfrs, etc.

>The investor must therefore become value-adding himself to be able to invest
>in the best biotech projects.

i.e just letting Gluckman, Marshall etc evaporate millions is not
generous enough - you got also to add value ...

> The essential characteristics of a competent venture investor are
>multi-faceted and a non-comprehensive list follows.
> He
>or she:
>* Builds operational milestones - in cooperation with the entrepreneur
>- that are achievable and will increase the value of the project in the eyes
>of other dedicated biotech investors.

nice hint there of Shipley's immortal "perception is reality"

>* Establishes strategic plans for each step of growth of the company
>(considers: patents, animal and clinical trials, licensing, exits).

let's hear more about that last category - please! It has been
very important but little reported. J Celera Venter could become the top
ace exiter soon; meanwhile the list could start with Ken Giles ...

>* Identifies and recruits competent board and management members.
>* Identifies and establishes financing syndicates for later financing.

pretty good trick if done before any evidence of anything saleable
... but, one infers, surprisingly routine. John Robinson's book 'Excess
Capital' was horribly true.

>* Monitors the competition.
>* Makes introductions to technologycollaboration partners through network.

pidgin German, I take it

>All of the above is done at cost to the biotech venture investor

and how! The S Sea Bubble was tiny compared with this
hundreds-of-billions gene-tampering bubble

> but is performed to increase and
>leverage

I knew this OK-word would be along any time

> the value of a project. Thus, before an entrepreneur meets a
>possible biotech venture investor, the entrepreneur realistically identifies
>areas of weakness. And this is the opportunity for the investor to help in
>specific areas (other than just allocating capital).
>
>The Zeuthen-plan
>To bring together needs and resources, BBV invented (by the initiative of
>Professor
>Jesper Zeuthen) an instrument to
> a) focus the goals of the biotech project,
>b) give the entrepreneurs value when milestones were met, and
> c) lower the risk of the biotech venture investor.

wot no mission statements?

> This instrument is called the
>Zeuthen-plan (alternatively the option/milestone-plan) and has its source in
>an idea by Professor Roger Fisher of
> Harvard Business School

ah - this rot at the heart of the Ivy League is a source of much
bullshit, and if anything getting worse.

> which was to negotiate on the merits.

that would be a pleasant surprise; don't hold your breath.

> Instead of head-to.head negotiations about price,
>the discussions are focused on how to grow the project into a large company
>with products on the market.

i.e "let's not offrip each other - let's work out how to rook
third parties. Slap in a Waitangi Klaim - that should increase the
project turnover one or two orders of magnitude."

> The Zeuthen plan is best described by a simple
>example (Fig. 1). The entrepreneur needs cash and a detailed plan for
>developing value in the company without diluting his ownership to an
>unacceptable level.

one of the odder needs I've ever heard of

>The biotech venture investor needs return on the invested
>capital through time.

ditto


> The Zeuthen-plan brings these two issues together by
>initially letting the biotech investor invest a large sum at a small value of
>the project (the so-called pre-money value).

well that's mighty big of 'im

> But as time (and work) goes by,
>the entrepreneur can increase ownership by reaching milestones (using the
>financial resources and leveraging his own capabilities) thereby increasing
>the pre-money valuation as the 'proof-of-value' is presented.

wait till A Lovins hears of this - then there'll be a really
slick new future image

> The crucial
>issues are therefore the milestones. In the Zeuthen-plan, each milestone
>(typically 10 - encompassing all of a companies key R&D programs and
>corporate activities) is mutually agreed upon before the investment is done.

how dazzlingly novel, creative, lateral-thinking, and cosmic

>To be able to build these milestones and connect them to value (ownership) an
>exquisite know-how is needed.

far beyond most if not all of those who've cast themselves in the
roles these two are discussing

> And this can only be found in a merit-based
>discussion between the biotech entrepreneur and venture investor about the
>project and financial climate at hand. Possible areas from which milestones
>can be identified in a start-up biotech venture are as follows:
>* Affinity studies

nice OK-phrase, but vague

> and in vitro cell experiments

a card-carrying gasser; best I've heard, finally abolishing the
division live/dead. How frantically post-modern! Better electrocute
on-stage a green rabbit to celebrate this landmark.

>* Animal model (in several species) proof-of-principle.

any idea what that would cost? any idea how little it can mean?

>* ADMET data achieved.

®


>* Competent management recruited.

again, a blinding insight, breathtaking in its novelty

>* Financing from third party (large dedicated investor).

The Eartha Kitt recording could sell up large -
' but the music that excels is the sound of oil wells
As we add value by GE-ing '

>* Development/marketing
>agreement achieved with large pharmaceutical company entailing up-front
>milestones.

how many of those have been achieved? What is the ratio, to date,
of up-front to down-far-back milestones?

>How to approach a biotech venture investor
>How should a biotech entrepreneur behave when meeting a biotech venture
>investor?

try to keep a straight face, difficult tho' it may be; econobabble
in a soothing tone is the main requirement, sprinkled with a quasi-random
gene-jockey phrase combo, which can be programmed into your PalmPilot for
$999.95. Here's a time-destructing small sample of this value-adding
program FlameFront of Science®; to generate one OK phrase, pick one each at
random from each column:

biolistic genomic chimeraplasty
genomic DNA heterotomy
agrobactomic cassette penetrometry
proteomic kompughtomic biolistics
gene-gentling metabolomic prdktivity
...

>There are no
>simple answers

could have fooled me

>, but after reviewing 380 biotech projects

none of which has yet generated anything saleable

> during the past four
>years some advice can be given.
>These include:
>* Before any meeting with the
>investor, ask the investor what he believes is value in a biotech project -
>and then incorporate/address this in the business plan and presentation.

S/he will not notice you've fed back thus the same OK-phrase they'd
generated from their PalmPilot featuring FlameFront of Science®

>*After one week ask the investor if you could present the company during one
>hour only (you should be able to do it the way of the 'Silicon Valley
>elevator pitch').

- tho' this is only one option; the 'Mile High Club' could play a
crucial role too

> Send handouts of the presentation to the investor at least
>one week before the presentation takes place.
>* Show that you know each critical development stage for the company over
>the next three years - ie
>have a list of 10 crucial milestones ready.
>* List all competitors and describe why the project has a chance to
>succeed despite these threats (make
>a SWOT analysis).
>* Break down and show the value of the company - why is it
>worth EXm (pre-money value).
>* Discuss the future financing of the project -
>not only this round of financing . Be careful to describe exits (eg name
>potential acquirors).

We can dump this project onto Genesis® who can launder it offshore
and foist onto ...

>Conclusion
>A biotech entrepreneur should use the biotech
>venture investor as his personal management consultant to achieve the highest
>possible value in the shortest possible time for the project. This will only
>be achieved if truly value-adding products are being developed. To secure
>this, an intimate cooperation between the parties will have to be established
>and must be based on the merits of the project instead of focusing on the
>value alone.
>
>Enquiry No 95
>
>Thomas Tscherning and Jesper Zeuthen are with
>BankInvest Biomedical Venture, Copenhagen, Denmark. www.biventure.com

Wait till these two meet up with

>Kieran Elborough & Zac Hanley
>Consultants in Plant Biotechnology
>New Zealand
>Biotech@GreenGeNZ.com ?

These couples will leverage, rort, & quantify ...

R

This scientist is to Australia what Davide Bellamy used to be to NZ
- frequently brought in by the media as an Overseas Expert on applied
ecology. It is just NZ's bad luck that Bellamy is an ill-spoken stunt-man
who went "over to the other side" as he put it, making advertisements for
agrichemicals.

D T is a v high-class ecologist who has been criticizing
gene-tampering longer than most. When's the last time you saw the media
call him in to give the last word, or any word, on a gene-tampering puff?
Instead, they normally bring in what they fail to label as a paid
propagandist for the gene-jiggering trade.

R

Biotechnology: A Geneticist's Personal Perspective
by Dr D T Suzuki
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/General/DTSbiotech.pdf

David Suzuki Foundation
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/
---