In summary, the aforementioned study alleges adherence of fluoroquinolone antibiotics to human DNA.
Discussion
Issue #1: Was this study correctly performed and are these results valid & legitimate?
Such a question cannot be answered unless any scientific study is found valid by a legitimate peer review process that normally requires publication in legitimate scientific peer reviewed media. In this case, such scientific scrutiny is absent. Giving this study the benefit of the doubt, it would certainly add some validity to the congruence of this study if Dr. King, instead of using very general and seemingly impressive statements referring to the scientists involved as “national and international”, would share their exact names and professional credentials, as well as the laboratory, or laboratories, where this experiment took place, however, Dr. King did not divulge this information, either.
Issue #2: What was the actual concrete and practical, clinical-medical benefit to all fluoroquinolone victims of this study, assuming it is 100% valid?
The reason for this question is the following. Our medicine, for the last 100 years, has accrued literally millions of scientific findings, including within the sciences of molecular biology and genetics, concerning the widest variety of chronic diseases. This process has involved hundreds of thousands, if not more, scientific studies and has consumed many trillions of dollars. However, to date, not a single cure for a single chronic disease has been found through any of these studies.
A good question to ask, before we indulge in any further studies concerning fluoroquinolone toxicity or other medical pathologies, is: why has medical research failed to materialize into actual solutions at the patient’s bedside?
Scientific research, in any field of science, can only lead to the solutions for complex problems when reductionistic findings, or findings concerning parts, e.g., molecular biology, genetics, pathology, toxicology, etc., can be successfully assembled into effective general theory or strategy that is capable of putting these findings to productive use. This is exactly how working technologies, such as motor vehicles, computers, or televisions become successfully assembled. Otherwise, isolated parts, per se, cannot and will not function. However, the most fundamental problem with medicine, and its research, has been that such successful theories or assemblies have never materialized.
Here are just a few quotes from a prestigious medical academician and scientist: “Even papers in immunology or cell biology mystify me – and so do some papers in my own field, neurobiology. Every day my expertise seems to get narrower. I can’t grasp much of immunology even though I have a fancy Ph.D., but the wonderful thing is that most immunologists can’t either.” Stuart Firestein, PhD., a professor and Chairman of Biological Sciences at Columbia University (Scientific American, April 2012).
Professor Firestein also stated that while the media impresses the public with new scientific discoveries it often avoids discussing their true meaning or their ability to solve problems and that most of these discoveries end up being just, “piles of facts in which scientists and educators should stop trafficking!”
Another quote: “Medicine has miserably failed in the cure of chronic diseases because it has relied too much on scientific findings.” Professor of medicine, Colin Alexander, MD, book author of “Complexity in Medicine: The Elephant in the Waiting Room”.
From these quotes alone, it is evident that I am not saying anything new here, but in relation to this study which has produced some scientific findings, we are forced to ask Dr. King some legitimate and very practical questions on behalf of the victims of fluoroquinolone toxicity and we would appreciate if Dr. King could answer these questions, on this forum, on behalf of these victims.
Question #1: In general, how did this study result in a working ‘television’ or ‘computer’ for fluoroquinolone victims?
Question #2: What is your concrete plan for the fluoroquinolone victims, that can alleviate their suffering now, today, based on this study?
Question #3: Provided that these results are correct, that these victims’ DNA has become altered by fluoroquinolones, can their DNA or genes be replaced, today?
I ask this because, to the best of my knowledge, genetic scientists are unable to carry out such a procedure. When and if ever they will be able to remains completely unknown at this time. Furthermore, upon consulting the work of one of the most prominent geneticists in the world, such as Aubrey Milunsky, M.D., D.Sc., F.R.C.P., F.A.C.M.G., D.C.H., Founder and Co-Director, Center for Human Genetics, Inc., and him directly, I learned that even if such a procedure was already available, there are further arduous hurdles which geneticists must overcome.
Among them are: how to control these newly implanted strands of DNA and genes, and prevent these from producing new and abnormal proteins, which could lead to cancerous tumors or other pathological cell growth.
Question #4: Following the findings of this questionable study, where we already knew previously that fluoroquinolones were very bad, toxic and poisonous, how has this study changed our overall practical knowledge of quinolones as being very bad, toxic and poisonous, besides adding another detail to the fact that quinolones are very bad, toxic, and poisonous?
Question #5: What exactly do you propose concerning this study, to collect more money, to extend or conduct another study? If yes, why?
Question #6: Did you find anything wrong with my “Statement of Hope to Fluoroquinolone Victims”, posted in October of 2013, which offered them a concrete, highly and generally effective in my medical practice method to evaluate and treat these victims?
I am looking forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Savely Yurkovsky, MD
37 King Street
Chappaqua, NY 10514
info@yurkovsky.com
www.yurkovsky.com
ph: (914) 861-9161
Fax: (914) 861-9160
Please click here to download a printable version of Dr. Yurkovsky’s above letter.