By Lola
Here is what really happened with the NXIVM studies that Suneel Chakravorty isn’t telling everyone.
Suneel is attempting to re-write history after the facts were determined by the State of New York in an investigation into the practices of Brandon Porter that got him fired from his job at the hospital he was working at and later the removal of his medical license. Brandon Porter is no longer about to work as a medical doctor or a researcher anywhere in the United States due to breaking the law the way he did with Keith Raniere and NXIVM.
Dr. Brandon Porter lost his NYS medical license for experiments purportedly conducted without employing proper protocols, including lack of informed consent.
Suneel is blowing smoke in an attempt to cloud the issues with each of the three research projects NXIVM and Porter did.
Why? Mostly to keep those still loyal to NXIVM involved. Why? Because none will do real research outside of what is posted or what Frank will post for them.
If they are wiling to read one article, that will give them some other data points that they were taught to look for in their first 16-day intensive, here you go.
If not, remain sheep.
What studies did NXIVM conduct? NXIVM conducted three studies: one on obsessive-compulsive disorder; another on Tourette’s Syndrome; and, finally, the Fright Study.
What is the law on human subject research that applies to NXIVM’s research? The Public Health Law of New York State law has a section that defines what the state considers to be regulated research and how human subjects are to be treated.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBH/A24-A
What part of the Public Health Law did NXIVM break? “Protection of Human Subjects” puts several requirements on human subject research, including the participation of at least five persons in a Human Research Review Committee (HRRC), an entity that is more or less a specialized equivalent to the more commonly broadly used Institutional Review Board (IRB). None of the studies were reviewed by any HRRC.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBH/2444
Does it matter what kind of video people in the Fright Study were shown? No. The study was illegal from the start. It would be illegal if Porter showed Disney movies, too.
Was there valid science done in either of the NXIVM experiments? No.
The Department of Health found inconsistencies with accepted norms of scientific research. These included:
– Subjects were not put into random, anonymized trials; their identifying information was exposed, leaving open questions of bias.
– Data from multiple recording devices was left unsecured. Nor were the results even analyzed by Porter.
– Per New York State, the three research studies were “without results or benefits to science, medicine or humankind.”
What did Brandon Porter do when confronted? In 2017, the Chief of Hospital Medicine for St. Peter’s Hospital (Brandon Porter’s institution) asked him about his participation. Porter admitted it. St. Peter’s Hospital Network gave Porter a month before asking him to resign – which is what he did.
What about the “Consent Form” Suneel Chakravorty shared?
Without a Human Research Review Committee, this form is just window dressing. It also deviates from this template the State endorses. And in the end, it is moot because state law holds that…
https://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/Informed Consent Template Revised with HIPAA_August 2020_revised.docx
No such voluntary informed consent shall include any language through which the human subject waives, or appears to waive, any of his legal rights, including any release of any individual, institution or agency, or any agents thereof, from liability for negligence.”
Why does Chakravorty need to relitigate this? NXIVM’s current legal strategy appears to involve splitting the civil case against them. At present, the lawsuit is against NXIVM as a collective racketeering enterprise, but Clare Bronfman’s (and other defendants’) distinct interest clearly lies in severing her own civil case from Keith Raniere’s and others. And Chakravorty is good at nothing if not for doing shit-work for Bronfman.
Keith Raniere with Clare Bronfman
What is the evidence both Raniere and Clare Bronfman knew about the illegal studies? Raniere took direct responsibility for the Tourette’s Study, flogging it in an attempt to get bailed out after his arrest.
Clare Bronfman also took direct responsibility for her own participation in promoting the bogus claims of the Tourette’s study through her credit for the My Tourette’s film.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6374665/191/united-states-v-raniere/
Clare Bronfman and Sara Bronfman’s foundation is explicitly linked to the purchase of equipment used for the studies.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/266041980
How long is the evidence trail for NXIVM’s illegal experiments? Possibly for over a decade. The experiments definitively ended in 2017 with Porter’s resignation from St. Peter’s. They were likely contemplated as early as 2007, when Raniere first filed a patent application, “Determination of whether a Luciferin can be rehabilitated.”
From the patent
The patent depicts a device and process that is nearly identical to witnesses’ description of the Fright Study – and incidentally, this patent contains three mentions of showing a subject a “torture movie.”
That the patent pre-dates the experiment should only further cast doubt as to the motives for the experiment.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130281879A1/
An aspect of the present invention is a method for determining whether a Luciferian can be rehabilitated. The method includes stimulating the Luciferian with a first stimulus and recording a first physiological response by the Luciferian to said first stimulus. The method includes determining, from the first physiological response, a first polarity of the Luciferian’s response to the first stimulus. The method includes stimulating the Luciferian with a second stimulus and recording a second physiological response by the Luciferian to said second stimulus. Further, the method includes determining, from the second physiological response, a second polarity of the Luciferian’s response to the second stimulus. The method includes comparing the first polarity to the second polarity to determine whether the second polarity has a greater value than the first polarity; and determining, from said comparing of first polarity and second polarity, whether the Luciferian can be rehabilitated.
It takes one to know one. Can this Luciferian be rehabilitated?
