Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar and Dr. Rudolph Schrot...

"Two neurosurgeons from the University of California, Davis have been banned from performing medical research on humans after they allegedly experimented on three patients without university permission...documents that allegedly show the surgeons obtained consent of three terminally ill patients with malignant brain tumours to introduce bacteria into their open head wounds in hopes that it might save their lives...the university has found that two of the three patients developed sepsis and died.
...One of the doctors, J. Paul Muizelaar, 65, holds a prestigious position as chair of the Department of Neurological Surgery. Rudolph Schrot, 44, worked under Muizelaar as an assistant professor and neurosurgeon.
Muizelaar, however, doesn't believe he did anything wrong."Muizelaar reportedly said, "there are people who blatantly break the rules that endanger all of their research programs. We certainly didn't blatantly trample any rules."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/j-paul-muizelaar-rudolph-uc-neurosurgeons_n_1695562.html

"In 2008, the doctors proposed treating a glioblastoma patient with bacteria applied to an open wound to "attack the tumor," then later withholding antibiotics and letting the bacteria do its work.
Schrot contacted the FDA but ultimately was cautioned that animal studies were needed first...And so the doctors continued with preclinical work, arranging for a rat study..." http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/22/4648415/2-uc-davis-neurosurgeons-accused.html  ...a rat study where at least that we know 2 patients human beings were killed..

 Who are the people that this prestigious neurosurgeon with a position as chair of the Department of Neurological Surgery talks when he says "there are people who blatantly break the rules that endanger all of their research programs..." and who are the human guinea pigs of those people...can they be epileptics/people with other type of brain tumours?????

Are the articles about medical research that they said that are made with animals made with human beings??????Are human beings considered rats by some scientists, rats that they can play with and torture in studies similar to this :
"...Mice are exposed to an electric shock and learn to associate it with a neutral stimulus like the chamber in which they received the shock (contextual fear conditioning) or an auditory tone (cued fear conditioning).Memory is a high level brain function that allows organisms to modify their behaviour...RFID transponders (Datamars SA, Bedano, Switzerland) were injected subcutaneously in the dorso-cervical region under Isoflurane inhalation anesthesia"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230787/

Dr. José Cortez Pimentel...

 "Por um diagnóstico de cancro, que afinal não tinha, um homem submeteu-se a uma cirurgia para retirar a próstata. E para salvar uma vida que afinal não estava em perigo acabou com problemas crónicos que vão da impotência à incontinência.

...um patologista português de maior renome, José Cortez Pimentel, foi condenado a pagar perto de cem mil euros a Roberto Berger.

O caso começou em 1998, quando Roberto Berger, então com 59 anos, se submeteu a prostectomia total para retirar a próstata que, de acordo com o diagnóstico de José Manuel Cortez Pimentel, tinha um adenocarcinoma, ou seja, cancro. Na análise pós-operação efectuada à glândula, não foi, contudo, detectada presença de tecido cancerígeno....

Ao fim de oito anos, o Tribunal Cível de Lisboa deu razão a Roberto Berger, dando como provado que o diagnóstico do réu estava errado, apesar das alegações do mesmo de que as lâminas, com os filamentos retirados por biopsia a Roberto Berger, tinham tecido cancerígeno. Para tentar provar a sua alegação, Cortez Pimentel apresentou em tribunal, primeiro, pareceres de outros peritos que, perante uma foto, garantiram que os tecidos tinham cancro.

Contudo, também a lâmina tinha alguns vestígios de tecido cancerígeno. Roberto Berger percebeu então que essa não era exactamente igual - como deveria ser - a outra cópia que tinha em seu poder (por, inicialmente, ter pensado em ser operado em França  (immigrant?? what nationality???...)por um cirurgião que tinha solicitado esse material de análise). E era nos elementos estranhos e não coincidentes das lâminas que estava o tecido cancerígeno.

A estratégia seguinte da acusação foi tentar provar que os tecidos afectados não pertenciam ao paciente. Mas, explica este, "no Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal disseram-me que o tratamento químico que é feito, para preservar o ma- terial biológico, bem como o facto de a lâmina ter poucas células complica muito a extracção de ADN". E aí entrou o papel decisivo do Instituto de Patologia e Imunologia Molecular da Universidade do Porto que, ao comparar os dois elementos, conseguiu provar que o tecido afectado não era geneticamente compatível com o do paciente."

Translation

"For a diagnosis of cancer, which did not had, a man has undergone surgery to remove the prostate. And to save a life was not in danger after all ended up with chronic problems ranging from impotency to incontinence.
A pathologist ... most renowned Portuguese, Jose Cortez Pimentel, was ordered to pay close to a hundred thousand euros to Robert Berger.

The case began in 1998 when Roberto Berger, then 59, was subjected to total prostatectomy to remove the prostate, according to the diagnosis Jose Manuel Cortez Pimentel, had an adenocarcinoma, or cancer. In the analysis operation performed after the gland, there was, however, detected the presence of cancerous tissue ....
After eight years, the Civil Court of Lisbon gave reason to Robert Berger, giving as evidence that the defendant's diagnosis was wrong, despite claims that the same blades, with the filaments removed by biopsy to Robert Berger, had tissue carcinogen. To try to prove his claim, Cortez Pimentel presented in court, first, opinions of other experts, before a photo, ensured that the tissues had cancer....

However, the blade also had some evidence of cancer tissue. Roberto Berger realized then that this was not exactly the same - as it should be - the other copy he had in his power (by initially have thought of being operated on by a surgeon in France who had requested the material analysis). And it was on the foreign elements and unmatched blade that the cancerous tissue was.

The strategy follows the prosecution was trying to prove that the affected tissue did not belong to the patient. " And then came the decisive role of the Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto that, in comparing the two elements, to prove that the affected tissue was not genetically compatible with the patient's"

http://www.dn.pt/inicio/interior.aspx?content_id=648315