James Privitera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James R. Privitera, Jr., M.D. is an American physician who has been involved in several controversial forms of alternative medicine and nutrition.

Contents

[edit] Education and publications

Privitera graduated in 1962 with a Bachelor of Science in Biology and Chemistry from Canisius College. After taking graduate Biochemistry courses at University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, he earned an M.D. from Creighton University in 1967. He did a one year Internal Medicine Internship at Providence Hospital, Seattle, Washington, then a one-year residency at Presbyterian Hospital, San Francisco, California. From 1969-1970 Privitera took a Clinical Fellowship in Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology at The Scripps Research Institute. He has practiced in Covina, California since 1970. [1]

Privitera is author of a book promoting the health benefits of olive leaf extract [2], and another on use of live blood analysis to detect “silent clots.” [3]

He is listed on California: Thyroid Top Doctors Directory [4], was the first medical professional to be appointed to BioImmune’s Scientific Advisory Board, has professional affiliations with the American College for the advancement in Medicine, American Preventive Medical Association, American College of Applied Nutrition, Northwest Academy of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Allergy [5], and is a board member of the International Academy of Alternative & Anti-Aging Medicine (I.A.A.M)[6]

[edit] Laetrile controversy and legal ramifications

In 1975, Privitera was convicted of selling laetrile in California. Privitera was sentenced to six months imprisonment in California but appealed the decision. [7] The case led to a Supreme Court of California decision in 1979. Citing Roe v. Wade, Privitera's lawyers contended that the right to obtain laetrile is a fundamental right of privacy. [8] The California Court of Appeal overturned the conviction citing a compelling interest, and the state appealed. [9] The Supreme Court of California ruled 5 to 2 that the right to obtain drugs of unproven efficacy is not encompassed by the right of privacy embodied in either the State or Federal Constitutions. The majority wrote that "the lesson of Roe v. Wade for our case is that a requirement that a drug be certified effective for its intended use is a reasonable means to 'insure maximum safety for the patient.'" [10] Privitera was unsuccessful in an attempt to have the Supreme Court of the United States review the case. [11] Consequently Privitera had his medical license temporarily suspended and he was placed on 10 years' probation. [12] Having exhausted all his legal appeals in 1982, he served about two months in prison, but was soon pardoned by California governor Jerry Brown after the governor received more than 10,000 letters from citizens asking him to do so.[13] Privitera, who was also granted a license to practice medicine in Colorado in 1983, was also put on probation in that State in 1986, solely because of the temporary suspension of his California licence. [14] In 1987, the State of California moved, unsuccessfully, to revoke his probation and end his practice. [15] James Privitera is still in practice in Covina, California. [1]

Supporters at the National Health Federation explain:

"Dr. Privitera felt it was his duty to try whatever rational modalities would most help his patients. Laetrile was one of those modalities, so much so that today most States have recognized its benefits and legalized its use. So, in the early 1970s, Dr. Privitera was providing patients with the anti-cancer nutrient laetrile. Unfortunately, California was not one of the States that had legalized laetrile and the so-called California Board of Medical Quality Assurance decided to prosecute [...] The charges stated that he had 'conspired to commit the crime of the unlawful sale of drugs, compounds or devices for the alleviation or cure of cancer,' in this case through his use of an unapproved drug – laetrile. But the real crime in the State’s eyes was that he was actually helping patients get well. And when the Court ordered Dr. Privitera to stop administering and providing laetrile to his patients, at least five of them - who had experienced tremendous improvement under his care – subsequently succumbed and died of the disease." [1]

The United States Food and Drug Administration continues to seek jail sentences for vendors selling laetrile for cancer treatment, calling it a "highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer." [16]

[edit] Live blood analysis controversy

Live blood cell analysis is the high resolution microscopic observation of live blood cells in a dark field, a common technique in microbiology called dark field microscopy.[17]

During his probationary period, Privitera, a proponent of Live Blood Analysis (LBA), founded two companies for commercializing LBA, Livcell Analysis and NutriScreen for which he has been criticized by James A. Lowell Ph.D., ex-professor of life sciences at Pima Community College. [18] Supporters of Privitera explain that having: "done original scientific research with the darkfield microscope, [... he] decided to publicize darkfield microscopy and its benefits [... his] book shows in detail how darkfield microscopy works in the doctor’s office and how orthodox medicine has worked overtime to prevent its acceptance in the medical community." [1]

Ron Kennedy, M.D. writes on his web site: "An understanding of the high resolution cell morphology is very important in grasping acidity, for it is only with this type of microscope that the causes of acidity are observable. In this kind of microscope light comes from the side of the specimen which then appears against a black background, whereas in all other light microscopes the light shines directly through the specimen from behind it. This can be compared to seeing dust particles floating in air illuminated by a source of light not aimed directly into your eyes and visible only by virtue of a dark background compared to searching in vain for those same dust particles with the source of light shining through the particles and directly into your eyes. This microscope illuminates and makes visible phenomena in human blood which cannot be seen in any other way. With addition of phase contrast capability, amost nothing escapes visualization." [19]

In 2001, the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General issued a report on regulation of "unestablished laboratory tests" that focused on live blood cell analysis: "Most State agencies believe that 'Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments 1998'(CLIA) regulation of Live Blood Cell Analysis would help to insure the quality of testing and help protect patients from unscrupulous providers. Two-thirds of State agencies believe that CMS '(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)' should change CLIA policies to better address Live Blood Cell Analysis and other unestablished tests. Most providers of unestablished laboratory tests agree that unestablished tests should be regulated to protect patients, but they feel that CLIA is the wrong program to do this."[20]

[edit] Disciplinary action

In 1999, a patient's death led to action by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. According to the charges, a 71-year old patient who had been suffering from multiple severe medical problems, including diabetes, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, rectal bleeding had been seeing Privitera since 1991. She came to his office in March 1999 while she had been suffering from pain in the left arm for a few days. While in the waiting room she complained of a headache and asked for Tylenol. She was treated with 20,000 units of the anticoagulant heparin under the tongue and subsequently with another 20,000 units subcutaneously while in Privitera’s office. The woman collapsed shortly after and his staff called 911. She was taken to the hospital comatose and bleeding from several orifices. The emergency room tests showed she was fully anticoagulated and unable to stop the bleeding in her head. She was declared clinically brain dead and died the next morning. The State charged Privitera with gross negligence, repeated negligent acts, incompetence, prescribing without indication, and inadequate records. [21] Prior to trial, in a plea bargain with the State, Privitera admitted to "failing to perform an adequate history and physical of a patient before commencing treatment and failing to maintain adequate and accurate records of the care and treatment provided to a patient in the manner set forth in the Accusation," all other charges were dropped [21] and he was reprimanded, fined and required to take courses on prescribing practices and recordkeeping by the California Board of Quality Medical Assurance for the above admission.[21]

[edit] Criticism

Privitera has been criticized by Stephen Barrett for his involvement in several controversial practices, including laetrile, calcium pangamate, and DMSO.[22] Scott Tips explains the following about Barrett: "in 1998, the self-proclaimed “quackbuster” Stephen Barrett sued Dr. Privitera for defamation because of certain statements appearing in the book that were critical of Barrett. However, Barrett lost this suit when the court granted a summary-judgment motion in favor of Dr. Privitera." [1]

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e Tips S. Board Member Introspective: James R. Privitera M.D. via National Health Federation, retrieved September 23, 2006.
  2. ^ Privitera JR (1996). Olive Leaf Extract: A new/Old Healing Bonanza For Mankind. Nutriscreen, ISBN 0-9655872-0-7
  3. ^ Privitera JR, Stang A (1997). Silent Clots: Life's Biggest Killers, Lockstep Medicine's Conspiracy to Suppress the Test That Should Be Done in Emergency Rooms Throughout the World. Catacombs Press, ISBN 0-9656313-0-3
  4. ^ www.thyroid-info.com
  5. ^ Bioimmune Inc.
  6. ^ IAAM Board
  7. ^ Brant J, Graceffa J. Rutherford, Privitera, and Chad Green: Laetrile's setbacks in the courts. American Journal of Law and Medicine 6 (Spring 1980), 151-71.
  8. ^ People v. Privitera, 141 Cal. Rptr. 764 (Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
  9. ^ People v. Privitera, 23 Cal.3d 697, 591 P.2d 919, 153 Cal.Rptr. 431 (1979).
  10. ^ People v. Privitera, cert. denied 444 U.S. 949 (1979).
  11. ^ Office of Technology Assessment (1990). Unconventional Cancer Treatments. via Princeton University OTA Legacy
  12. ^ Ernst E (July 12, 2005). A new era of scientific discovery? Intrigued by the spectacular claims made for Live Blood Analysis? Don't be. It doesn't work. The Guardian
  13. ^ 10,000 letters from California citizens asking California Governor Jerry Brown to pardon him
  14. ^ State of Colorado Board of Medical Examiners Proceeding (January 10, 1986). Stipulation and Order in the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Regarding the License to Practice Medicine in Colorado of James R. Privitera, M.D. Proceeding No. RG ME DAFRI
  15. ^ Lee JH, Johnson J (January 13, 1990). Captivity Case May Be Tied to Faith. Los Angeles Times
  16. ^ US FDA (June 22, 2004). Lengthy Jail Sentence for Vendor of Laetrile—A Quack Medication to Treat Cancer Patients. FDA News
  17. ^ Illumination for Stereomicroscopy: Darkfield Illumination
  18. ^ Lowell JA (November 1986).Live Cell Analysis: High-Tech Hokum. [[Nutrition Forum.
  19. ^ High Resolution Blood Cell Morphology and The SanPharma Remedies
  20. ^ HHS Office of the Inspector General (July 2001). CLIA regulation of unestablished laboratory tests.
  21. ^ a b c State of California (March 31, 2003). In the Matter of the Accusation Against James R. Privitera M.D. Case No. 11-2001-119360
  22. ^ Barrett SJ, Former Laetrile Peddler Disciplined Again, Quackwatch, February 23, 2005. available online

[edit] External links