Thursday, December 6, 2012

Second project rejected by CPRIT

CPRIT has rejected our second project, this time on "administrative grounds". This is the same project that Bio-Alliance in Houston had promised to pre-review, but in the end had not even taken the trouble to read the Business plan and powerpoint presentation that they had requested from CRBCM.
We have asked permission from CPRIT to post their second rejection letter on our blog because they claim that their rejection letter is "privileged information" and should not be published without prior written consent.
It is important for the public who is reading our blog to know what reasons were given to reject a cancer survivorship center in El Paso!  It is interesting to note that this rejection comes as I published the letter to the Senators!
We will submit 2 research projects these coming days. We expect further rejections as CRBCM is or  seems to be barred from participation.
This all mis-adventure seems to result from failure from the legislature to tell us their clear intention when CPRIT was created.  We know now that University fund raisers seem to have been at the origin and lobbied the State Senate heavily to have  this organization created.  They have taken it over and distracted the public that this thing is for every one when it is really not.  You get lured to it just to find out that in fact you don't belong.   If it was for every one, why they have not assigned 99% to university and 1 % to the public to give non university a reasonable chance.  They want to give it all to their institutions.  It is kind of vicious and disturbing to believe that one would misrepresent a source of funding, hiding the real intention.  Make people work hard to submit projects but ultimately reject them because they are not a university.  The review process is skewed and secretive. That is why, I am prevented from publishing it.  What a twisted world we live in. Frankly speaking the so called review is so biased toward belonging to the university as the main criteria that it is almost laughable.  They claim for example that my project will involve humans, and I did not have provide proof of knowing about NCI standards for research on human.  The remark is bizarre because I don't know in the USA an Oncologist with 15 years of experience who has not obtain recommended basic NCI standard. I worked for kaiser Permanente, an institution that has its own Hospital and and publications and particpate to national studies, I registered patients to clinical trials, And I did mention this in the project.  They basically  rush to judgement because CRBCM is new.    The gag order is to hide major insufficiencies in the quality of the review at CPRIT now.  There are evidences that the guy who rejected the 2nd project did not read it that's all I am saying for now.   Another Oncologist called me tonight and asked why I am "wasting my time". " For a principle", I replied.  I really trusted this organization and its intention to do good. I am actually surprised of the twisted outcome.

Post a Comment