Talk:BX Protocol/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 September 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Dewayne Lee Smith[edit]

I removed this part:

thumb|165px|Mugshot of the purported creator of BX Protocol, "Dr" Dewayne Lee Smith

The "inventor" of BX protocol is "Dr" Dewayne Lee Smith. He says he has a Ph.D. in “biological sciences” from “University of Canterbury”[1], which sounds rather similar to “Canterbury University”, which is a degree-mill in the Seychelles[2]. "Dr" Dewayne Lee Smith has been arrested by police in Utah [3], coincidentally where Delta Institute have a clinic, which they try to keep quiet for some reason. However Delta Institute gave away the location of their US clinic by advertising staff-vacancies in the local classifieds [4]

  1. ↑ https://archive.is/4PneQ#selection-371.137-371.162
  2. ↑ There is a diploma-mill called "Canterbury University"
  3. ↑ A page showing a mugshot of BXprotocol's "Dr" Dewayne Lee Smith, taken when he was arrested by Utah police, USA.
  4. ↑ https://archive.is/b1Alv#selection-1615.0-1799.135]

Problems I see with it:

  • It's not clear to me that "Dewayne Lee Smith" and "Duane Smith" are really the same person?
  • I'm not sure if we need to include his mugshot? The source doesn't mention he was convicted, so he could have been simply arrested and set free based on a misunderstanding (I also don't like linking to these bottom feeding mugshot sites, but that's another matter...)
  • There is a real University of Canterbury. That there's also a diploma mill with a similar sounding name doesn't prove he got it from the diploma mill...

Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As a graduate and faculty member of Canterbury University, I find your perception of reality instructive.
First of all, Canterbury University is not a degree mill, unless you consider 4 years expeditious. Just because Wikipedia says it is so, doesn't make it true. In fact, examining your recent contribution to Wikipedia about BX; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BX_Protocol, doesn't make your opposition to BX credible at all. To the contrary, the article elicits support for BX.
Is this the type of mental dexterity that should convince the forum that your academics are somehow superior to our alternative brand of education at Canterbury?
Alternative institutions, like Canterbury, are on the rise, while trust in conventional universities is plummeting.
Attacks on Canterbury
Some in the mainstream academia indoctrinate their students into believing that they are dissident if they do not cling to established thought.
Many Ph.D.'s are procreated when conventional dogma encounters an impressionable mind. Then as they mature, they begin to believe that the outside world is evil and inferior if they do not forfeit their own believes or subjugate their intellectual autonomy to the will of the majority, (that is to say the "establishment" or mainstream research community in this case).
The great majority of universities do not seem to enhance the mental freedom of their students at all, some of whom are psychologically damaged by the experience. I have found that some Universities have a lot in common with mind-control cults. You may laugh, but the practices of such cults are strangely familiar to anyone looking at academia from a safe distance. The four fundamental cult traits of conventional universities are: 1. Behavior Control, 2. Information Control, 3.Thought Control, and 4. Emotional Control. Is this why the testimonials on the BX Website are repulsive?
Academia is broken, has become a meritocracy, and offers little meaningful hope for true enlightenment, and you claim we should be worried that Dr. Smith went to Canterbury instead of Leiden? ASTONISHING!
MUG SHOT CLAIMS
The “mug shot” claims are an example of how desperate this person is to discredit the organization. The tactic involves joining 1 truth with 1 or 2 fallacies in order to achieve the desired social impact.
2002 and 2013 “Arrest”
The Truth:
Dr. Smith was “ticketed” in 2002 for protesting a beef and poultry contamination. The protest was aimed at a food chain and the USDA. When refusing to leave the property, he was written a ticket and released. This type of misdemeanor required a “mug shot” under plea in abeyance. NO ARREST NO CONVICTION. Dr. Smith offers no apologies and is very proud of his actions in this instance.
In 2013 Dr. Smith was ticketed for target practicing on a gun range that had been the active gun range in the area for nearly 20 years. The new owner of the property requested that police start ticketing people if they came on the land. That is his right and Dr. Smith was more than happy to pay the fine. This was a misdemeanor trespassing charge and again under plea in abeyance, mug shots were required. NO ARREST NO CONVICTION.
The Lie:
Delta’s founders and employees are fraudsters. Delta is a scam. Delta does not provide anything for your money. People that work for Delta are fraudsters. Want proof? Check out these Mug Shots of the shysters in action.
Analysis:
The trickery of Big Pharma Rob is sophisticated. He is obviously an intelligent individual with a talent at distortion and manipulation. He is a liar through and through. Many will decide not to do our protocol as a result of his criminal activities. :That is unfortunate, and also distinguishes him as an evil person that cares little about your health.
The Bio-Science program (PhD.) at Canterbury University requires 92 credits + a 4 year degree. — Unsigned, by: Solvefalse / talk / contribs
Your screed has been noted. And dismissed as it provides no actual factual information.
But I do give you points on the purple prose and the fevered ranting.
Oh, and we're not big pharma.--Castaigne2 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Each time someone points to "this guy was arrested" I can't help but think they are bringing it up because they don't have any valid points to argue against the actual protocol. If you look at the blog on Delta Institute's page, they clarified the reason he was ticketed and confirmed there was no arrest, no conviction. So why was a completely false statement added back to the main page? See http://www.bxprotocol.com/blog.php?id=33--IsItFactual? (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

BX Protocol[edit]

Ingredients - It states on the photo of the bottle the ingredients are " Modified Fructose and activated carbon 1,000,000 X Inactive ingredients Reagent grade water 15 ml and 'Homeopathic formula'" The current photo text states "A bottle of "BX" from Delta Institute. If correctly labelled the bottle only contains water." Teeds01 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/9/97/Label_on_a_bottle_of_%27BX-Protocol%27%2C_%28a_cure-all%29%2C_listing_ingredients.png Further research could lead some to conclude that there is a real possibility the BX Protocol should not be on this page. The purpose of this website is to analyze and refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. By strict definition, sure, it meets some of the criteria outlined on this website. But, after doing some research, it is not entirely clear that the BX Protocol is pseudoscience or part of the anti-science movement. In fact, it seems the BX Protocol is highly scientific. Hell, it is so complex it is understandable why some people cannot comprehend it. Of course that could be the reason it ended up on this page in the first place. But does being complex mean it is pseudoscience or part of the anti-science movement? Not necessarily. One could argue that it is pseudoscience or anti-science because the evidence they present has not been peer-reviewed. Yes, it is true. No peer-reviews have been completed. Still, scientific studies have been conducted, and according to their website, continue to be conducted. But rather than debate whether or not the Delta Institute is conforming to traditional scientific review standards, let’s check out the claims made on this page. The RationalWiki BX Protocol page is not all that impressive. Independent research could lead someone to conclude that the author of the page simply has an axe to grind with the Delta Institute. Why? Who knows? Maybe he contacted them with the hopes it would enlarge his penis but was told they could not take him on as a client since that wasn’t the intended purpose of the BX Protocol.

That said, here are some of the statements I see issues with. Grab a cup of coffee, a soda or an ice cold beer. This might take a while.

BX refers to “Bacillus-X”, a term coined by discredited-scientist and conspiracy-theorist Royal Rife in the 1930’s.

  • Royal Rife is controversial. That is a fact. But this page gives the reader the opportunity to research both sides of his work. There is little scientific and/or factual evidence that exists proving Royal Rife was actually discredited. Dr. Rife had numerous scientists and doctors corroborate his results (Hess, 1996). While his research is controversial, there are reports that suggest Dr. Rife’s work was suppressed by the American Medical Association. Dr. Rife refused to sell his company to Morris Fishbein, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (Hess, 1996). If Dr. Rife’s work was discredited, why would legendary opponent of alternative medicine, Morris Fishbein, want to purchase his company? Maybe he didn’t actually consider it alternative medicine until Rife refused to sell him his company? [Hess, D. J. (1996, Dec.) Technology and alternative cancer therapies: an analysis of heterodoxy and constructivism. Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 10(4), 657-674.]
  • Delta Institute identifies the work of multiple credible pioneers in the creation of the BX Protocol including Nobel Prize winner including Otto Heinrick Warburg, Dr. William Frederick Koch, scientist Georges Lakhovsky, Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, and of course Dr. Royal Raymond Rife. If you have a hard time agreeing that Dr. Rife was credible, fine. But can you really discredit the others? Maybe we should dispute Otto Heinrick Warburg’s findings and demand his Nobel Prize be recalled. Not to mention, if you are going to use one of the videos to cite your reasoning, you may want to watch the whole thing or cite the whole truth, not just pieces to support your point. Visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzKVv3JI_uA and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy2V_GQB5D8

There is at least one documented case of someone dying because she chose this nonsense over chemotherapy

  • Has the entire world missed a major medical breakthrough? What treatment offers a 100% success rate? The Delta Institute does not claim that all members will be cured. In fact, they provide a video that shows the challenges of health restoration in end-of-life cases. While the member they documented did not recover, the video shows his quality of life was drastically improved during the last month of his life. Visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz4rsZq6DeU
  • This article suggests that if the person would have used chemotherapy as their treatment, they would still be alive. It is a well-known fact that choosing chemotherapy does not guarantee survival (Harrington & Smith, 2008). But the worst part about this statement is the example used. The reference cited was posted in 2012. In 2014, the Facebook page the author used to prove someone died shows this person chose chemotherapy as part of her treatment. Stating she “chose this nonsense over chemotherapy” should probably be fact checked before you use it as the basis of your argument. Sorry, you just invalidated your own argument. [Harrington, S.E. & Smith, T. J. (2008, Jun 11). The role of chemotherapy at the end of life. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 299(22). 2667-2678.]

Before you start treatment you’ve got to sign a release form which has about a dozen Quack Miranda Warning warnings, such as “not intended for the use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.

  • Isn’t the intent of any release form to provide the member with adequate information to determine if the benefits outweigh the risks? This empowers the consumer to decide for themselves whether or not they would like to participate in the program. Isn’t this similar to informed consent? Sure, some of the lines meet the definition of “Quack Miranda Warnings”. Does it completely discredit them? Nope. It could mean that it is just another legal statement companies have to use to avoid frivolous lawsuits.

This of course doesn’t stop their testimonials from advertising it is a cure for damn near everything.

  • The testimonials appear to document actual member experiences. In fact, many of the testimonials document the experience of users over the course of 12 months or more. This allows the viewer to draw their own conclusion of whether or not the BX Protocol is effective. There is no indication that these people are paid actors or that results aren’t typical. Sadly, they don’t mention enlarging the penis so it’s understandable why that could be a source of disappointment to some.

In the small-print you can also read that none of The Delta Institute employees are licensed physicians”

  • The “Meet the Team” section provides detailed information about employee and council member credentials. According to their Facebook Page, their member affiliates consists of about 25% MD's, about 30% D.O.s and about 20% N.M.D’s. The rest are mixed titles PhD's etc. Their website also shows they treat members from all over the world. Licensing requirements vary from each location. It would be unreasonable to expect staff members to be licensed in all of the locations they serve. In fact, it would be downright impossible. Visit: http://bxprotocol.com/meettheteam.php

They do not offer evidence or research for any claim

Really? Where was the author looking? Let’s not get into a debate over how the research was conducted and whether or not it was peer-reviewed since that wasn’t the claim made. The claim made simply states they offer no research or evidence. That is simply not true.

  • A 90 day study at Utah State University conducted by Patti Champine, M.Sc. provides results on the effect of BX Energy Catalyst on non-small cell carcinoma cell lines. Visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmydmGrNWd4
  • Practical methods for measuring mitochondrial function have been developed. Some of these methods include open respirometry, crenation studies, and mitochondrial function profiles. Results of clinical studies can be found on the website in Module #2 BX Research (In vivo). Visit: http://bxprotocol.com/deltascience.php

The entire treatment costs $16,995, paid up front, no refunds.

  • This statement is not entirely true. It is true that once a member is accepted, their membership fee is non-refundable. However, the source cited in this article indicates that the funds are held pending determination of applicants eligibility for membership. In the event the applicant is ineligible for membership, the entire club membership fee is returned to the applicant. If they were just in it to take the members money, why would you have to go through an approval process?
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BX_Protocol/Archive1&oldid=2483800"