Photo in front of the Hofburg Palace, taken after an invited talk I delivered at the 7th World Congress on Melanoma and 5th Congress of the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, Vienna, Austria in 2009.
ANDREW MANIOTIS, PH.D.
A professional career spent in scientific and medical research and teaching suggests that it is logical and increasingly clear that we should seek and obtain new scientific ideas, efficient design principles, new approaches for chronic or terminal illness reversal, better “best practices” and “standards of care” policy making, and indeed inspiration, from the best designer of them all: Nature itself.
Advances in scientific research, technological innovation, medical progress, and effective and humane improvements in social policy, all appear to take place not after incremental changes or alterations of preexisting ideas, inventions, or protocols. In Human history, revolutionary change and major developments appear to happen, as apparently biological evolution itself does, through “mutualistic interactions” rather than those perceived and described as competitive ones. Numerous biological examples are documented whereby mutualistic rather than competitive interactions have catalyzed major leaps in the evolution of life, and anthropologically speaking, also in Human “progress” toward establishment of “the good.” Revolutionary advancements made possible by mutualism appear moreover to punctuate long periods of little or no change in concepts, designs, mechanics, engineering, or more rarely, mathematics. Economic markets, religious views, and cultural practices also can drive or impede discovery, innovation, and can accelerate or decelerate solutions to the difficult problems that both individuals or cultures face.
Carefully researched histories and chronologic analyses of scientific hypotheses, medical protocols, social policy mandates, and human rights developments can likewise render even the most difficult scientific or medical problems transparent and accessible to solutions that often are concealed from us. Tacit and cherished assumptions and “institutionalized” paradigms distort and can often render impossible the discovery of simple solutions to complex conundrums and paradoxes.
In 1997, I was given the challenging task of developing better methodologies to detect benign and malignant melanomas, and a few years later, I was appointed as a director of an initiative to develop more accurate tests for melanomas, breast cancers, and viruses. We were successful at meeting these challenges, and after much reflection and personal critical analysis, we erected our own therapeutic challenges that in some cases were partially met and overcome, and in several instances, were completely resolved (please review the section of this website entitled, “The Age of Regeneration,” and my C.V.).
We have learned often painfully, that aggressive approaches to treatments of complex syndromes do not work, or seldom work. This is nobody’s fault. Such failure is assured because the marvelous complexity of living cells and organisms has evolved over billions of years an efficiency that is largely still beyond our comprehension. It is true also, because living processes such as we are, are communities of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells that exist mutualistically, and function together like watches, fueled and constructed by our environments.
Analyses that emerge from the discovery processes of the basic sciences, biomedical research, and during the critical review of chronic and terminal illnesses in real human cases reveal that detailed collections and analyses of chronologic events set into a scientific framework of “efficient causes and designs” can reveal obtainable and sustainable solutions in the context of cancer, vaccine-associated cancers and injury, rational AIDS recovery, terminal substance dependency issues, and solutions to many other chronic or seemingly irresolvable science or health issues. In support of this idea, often the solution of biomedical problem or of an actual case involving terminal illness or diagnosis hinges on a small simple observation that isn’t even recorded in the lab notebook or medical chart because there is no place on the data collection sheet, or patient chart, to recognize, pay attention to, or to note the “small observations.”
After reviewing in the next section the nature and utility of knowing what we know to be efficient causes and designs, and how they were and have increasingly become to be defined as an epistemological tool as opposed to final causal thinking, “the state of the art” in mainstream cancer testing and treatment and their pitfalls is then presented in the section of this website entitled “Cancer.” As part of this difficult topic, I then provide a description of vasculogenic mimicry as a new vista in both cancer diagnostics and treatment of cancer, and outline how the theoretical regeneration of tumor tissue into normal tissue has been accomplished in the laboratory, and in several human contexts. This is followed by potential approaches that hold promise for non-toxic reversal of cancers that I believe have not yet broken through the consciousness of the mainstream scientific or medical communities, but which are beginning to attract some attention by numerous groups. Following this section, the history of a number of diseases and their hypothesized ultimate (final) causes are analyzed in great detail, and what emerges is a different picture of health and disease than the image we are given. It is belief-based images of disease and wellness, rather than science-based hypotheses and paradigms that predominate. It is hoped that these examples will stimulate further research into how to approach and vanquish so-called chronic and terminal illnesses.
During the course of my education and career, I’ve observed how a new revolution in the biological sciences has materialized and has been implemented into mainstream thinking in both the basic sciences, medicine, and public health policy. The discoveries and initiatives I’ve personally helped advance with research teams and talented individuals throughout the world include the sciences of vasculogenic mimicry, tissue engineering, mechanogenomics, tensegrity signaling, ongoing study of disease pathology and testing, cancer reversal, medical paradigm analyses and revision, patient advocacy, higher educational program development for scientists and medical students, and the regenerative sciences including in reverse chronological order, immune reconstitution from gut cryptopatch stem cells, regeneration of normal tissue from tumor tissue, regeneration of tissues including functional muscle, regeneration of cells after microsurgical manipulations, regeneration studies of cellular division centers, regeneration studies of chromosome and genome structure following their disassembly, nerve regeneration of myelination and other CNS (central nervous system) injuries based on PNS (peripheral nervous system) models, transplant techniques, and seizure research.
About this website: I was compelled to create this website in order for people to have a resource in place in order to begin to learn about, understand, and when in crisis, have reliable information to cope with the complexities of modern biomedical research, especially if and when conflicting and/or non-scientifically established information impacts medical diagnoses, treatment, health, liberty, or human rights. As a resource for professional scientists or physicians, chronologic information has been selected and provided as an aide for science or biomedicine-interested readers. With the technical information on this website, every effort has been made to provide quoted or referenced information from other sources in italics, or in quotes, or both, and every attempt has been made to identify the sources and quality of that information.
Diagnostic, medical, and legal histories of individuals who were and in some cases still are wrestling with the conundrums of diagnosed terminal illnesses, which include the basic facts of their specific case, and their outcomes, constitute rigorous scientific analyses and detailed time-lines of events and interventions including outcomes that are too detailed to be presented here, but can be provided in book form to those seeking help. A few of these cases are only abstracted here due to confidentiality issues in many cases, and they can be provided in their entirety with the permission of those whose cases are presented. In this context, disclosure arrangements need to be discussed for each desired complete document by written (email) request, made directly to me at email@example.com.
Arrangements for analyses or more in-depth information of other more general medical, legal, or scientific issues that deal with the scientific or biomedical subjects about which you may be seeking information or help also should be sent to me by written request (email).
I look forward to helping you decide for yourself by providing this detailed information, the best solution to your critical problem(s), by providing you with more exact and important information or contacts than you thought you could possibly need to make the best informed decision regarding the biomedical issues discussed more generally on this website.
“The courage, the vigor and the progress of a culture is judged by its will and its ability to examine and to re-examine, to question the status quo. If this approach constitutes the basis of dialogue between one human being and another; in science–which constitutes the foundation of a dialogue between man and his existence–such an approach is crucial. Science itself demands it, providing it takes place within an appropriate ethic. Unfortunately, the deontology1 of scientific dialogue is trampled more often than we imagine.”
Lambros Papantoniou, Late Senior State Department Press Correspondent for Greece, and dear friend, Washington D.C., October, 2007.
1Deontology is defined legally as the rightness of action as a function of whether the action is required, prohibited, or permitted by a moral duty.