Jakarta –
Honorary Council of Medical Ethics of the Indonesian Doctors Association (MKEK IDI) open voice regarding the method dissertation brainwashing Dr. Terawan Agus Putranto at Hasanuddin University (Nails). The MKEK suspected that there was pressure on Terawan’s supervisors during the dissertation.
MKEK IDI member Rianto Setiabudy assessed that Terawan’s dissertation had a number of substantial weaknesses. The first is the use of heparin, which is known to break down blood clots. Rianto spoke otherwise.
“The first time using heparin, so something like this, the dissertation is a radiological method using a catheter from a blood vessel in the thigh to the brain, where the contrast is released. The contrast will show where the blockage is, so that the tip of the catheter is opened and given a dose small amount of heparin to prevent blood clots at the tip of the catheter,” said Rianto in a meeting with Commission IX of the DPR, Monday (4/4/2022).
“So this small dose can’t be expected to break the clot from, so it’s just preventing blood clots from clogging. So when it’s used there’s a big problem. People who use this have strokes that have been more than a month. So the clot hardens in the blood. there and it is impossible for us to find in any literature that shows heparin is effective at breaking down blood clots,” continued Rianto.
Rianto then said that Terawan’s dissertation had no comparison. According to him, the research will be judged as flawed without comparison.
“Those who carry out this clinical trial are the group that has no comparison, no control, a true clinical trial would say that it is very difficult for us to accept the validity of a study without a comparison, this is a major flawed study,” he said.
Another weakness is the benchmark used in the dissertation. Rianto said that the research used as a benchmark should be the benefit of the patient.
“Third is that he uses a benchmark of success using replacement parameters, dilation of blood vessels or potential mass. A good clinical trial should not allow that benchmark, but improvements that are truly beneficial for patients, for example, previously unable to take care of themselves can now be managed I couldn’t walk before, now I can walk, that’s the right benchmark,” he said.
Rianto also said that the sample taken in Terawan’s dissertation was not clear. The last weakness, according to him, is related to procedures.
“The four basis for determining the sample of 75 people is not clear, and fifth he uses a diagnostic procedure that is used for therapeutic procedures,” he said.
According to Rianto, the dissertation supervisors knew these weaknesses from the start. But the guides were silent.
Rianto then suspected that there was pressure on the mentors. Although he didn’t know the form of the pressure.
“We might ask why the scientists who were the mentors were silent when they were doing the dissertation, there was something like that,” he said.
“I hereby express my highest respect to Unhas, and also my respect to their supervisory team because they knew from the start this weakness they knew. They just had to say yes because it was said that there was external pressure that I didn’t know in what form,” he continued. .
(eva/jbr)
–
