| This is a hypertext file from Rae West's archives. It is not his work and is reproduced here, unedited, so readers may judge for themselves the views expressed in this file when it was freely available on Internet. https://www.big-lies.org |
| Link back to 'Why Science Cannot Cure Cancer and AIDS Without Your Help?' [Ling] |
The following is taken from a letter I wrote to fifty seven top National Institutes Health officials on September 18, 1986:
"...I have not taken for granted that you agree with me that a revolution has indeed been successfully achieved. But a disagreement of this kind can be easily settled by a formal debate. This debate can be arranged and held at NIH between me and one member of the Physiology Study Section, or a number of any other Study Sections, or, failing both, a champion that the Physiology Study Section may elect from the U.S. or abroad. The subject of the debate would be cell physiology, i.e., how a living cell, the basic unit of all life, works as a coherent unit. Failure to produce a scientist to debate me by the Physiology Study Section must be clearly understood beforehand to mean "no contention" and admission of defeat.
As a prelude to the formal debate, I would be glad to come to NIH (at my own expense) and present to you and other interested and concerned NIH scientist-administrators an hour-long lecture on the essence of the revolution. ..."
In responses to this request, Dr. George J. Galasso, Acting Deputy Director for Extramural Research and Training, in a letter dated October 1, 1986 stated on behalf of the then NIH Director, James Wyngaarden: "The debate you suggest has some merit but it would be more appropriate in a larger forum much as a national meeting of the Federated Societies" (For the outcome of precisely such a planned debate for the Federation Societies, see linked page lp30).
The same Dr. Galasso, writing on April 14, also on behalf of Dr. Wyngaarden in response to yet another letter I wrote on March 24, 1987, stated: " ...we will not address the merits of the two theories (the membrane-pump theory versus the Association-Induction Hypothesis)...".
It is well known or certainly should be well known to those making decision on Science like NIH directors, that all valid scientific knowledge originated as a correct theory. Therefore I was, and still am flabbergasted to learn that the NIH Director and his Deputy had no interests in finding out whether or not the taxpayers money has been spent on supporting a wrong (or right) theory--- which can lead to nowhere. What were they interested in then?