From: Johan Beaurain, 23 Lower Collingwood Road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa

18 June 2005

From: Johan Beaurain, 23 Lower Collingwood Road, Observatory, 7925, South Africa.

Letter To: The Chairperson, Council of the University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17 Bellville, 7535, South Africa, Telegraph: UNIBELL, Cell: 082 787 8243

E-mail: ,

Dear Ms S. Tyeku

Re: Complaint on lack of Academic Freedom at the University of the Western Cape

I am busy with a master’s by thesis at the Education Faculty of the University of the Western Cape. I have done extensive literature research that leads me to conclude that the HIV/Aids[1] hypothesis is invalid. In the light of this I would like to reiterate that should someone be diagnosed as HIV-positive this is in effect giving that person a death sentence. I offered the accepted phenomenon known as the placebo effect to back this up. I thought I would have the right to incorporate aspects of these insights into my questionnaire and learning sessions that I intend to use in my research. But now it seems I do not yet enjoy this basic human right. I thought that ethics is something that can assist me to improve the quality of my research. But now it seems that ethics are used to try and manipulate me into religiously repeating the incorrect mainstream views on HIV/Aids as if they are scientifically valid.

The specific aim of the research will be to explore methods that could help learners’ to develop a more holistic view of health with an emphasis on learning sessions focusing on Ayurveda (as a form of self-healing) with the aid of a learning programme pitched at the ‘General Education and Training’ band in terms of the National Qualifications Framework.

My interpretation of the revised national curriculum statement grades R-9 (schools) policy for Life Orientation is that learners should be empowered to a level where the learner will be able to make informed decisions regarding personal, community and environmental health. (Page 40) These outcomes do not give educators the right to decide for learners. Learners must be able to make their own decisions after the educators have done their duty of exposing learners to a wide range of information

This research will attempt to answer the question: Can the development of a learning programme based on a particular holistic and self-healing modality like that propagated by Ayurveda, make a difference in learners’ thinking about their own health and well being, particularly in relation to what is referred to in allopathic medicine as a ‘disease’ called HIV/Aids?

I will do this by way of a pilot study in which I develop and implement a few learning sessions on Ayurveda. The differences in learners’ thinking will be measured with a questionnaire to be completed before and after the complete set of learning sessions.

Unfortunately the Senate of the University of the Western Cape refused to approve my application for ethical approval of my research. But they never gave me the reasons for their decision. And without such I will be unable to adapt my research proposal. My supervisor has withdrawn because she refuses to supervise me without the ethical approval from UWC. The structures apparently argued that my research is unethical but no proper explanation as to exactly why it would be unethical has been provided. On top of it, it appears as if the academic leadership at UWC has now decided to ignore me. And the worst is that UWC seems to be demanding their fees for this ‘service’. I am feeling victimized as a result of this process followed by the structures of UWC.

I will appreciate it if you could put a stop to this abuse of power by requesting council to initiate the appointment of a new thesis supervisor. I need a supervisor that will be prepared to facilitate the completion of my research according to an agreed ethical code. I need a supervisor that will be able to give me clear explanations as to why my research is unethical. Whilst I am not getting any explanation as to why Senate argued that my research would be unethical, I can only conclude that the research is not unethical.

In my own opinion I am thus only in need of academic guidance in terms of structuring my approach according to scientifically valid, and academically sound arguments. I would prefer a situation where the academic/s appointed as supervisor, will also be prepared to engage, debate and disagree with me regarding aspects of my research. I thought that is what research at an academic institution is about.

I have kept a documentary record in this matter:

The record suggests that there are certain academics at UWC that would like to transform UWC from “A Place of Quality, A Place to Grow” into A Place of Indoctrination, A Place of Stagnation”. But should we allow them to do so? I don’t think so.

Perhaps we also need to take consideration of the fact that it is not only those who own the means of production whom are funding research at academic institutions. The tax-paying public and unemployed people should also have a say.

Or should we on this issue of HIV and AIDS just forget about trying to get any value out of academia? Some of my friends argue that when a large group of people becomes determined to terminate their lives, we should allow them to do so. Personally I will totally disagree with such an approach.

I feel that we must challenge this situation. It is clear that those who own the means of production have now succeeded in setting up a worldwide infrastructure that tests unsuspecting people with invalid HIV tests for a virus of which the existence cannot be proven. This charlatanry – that also happens at state subsidized academic institutions – is happening under the pretext of trying to save peoples lives. If this is not fraud, then I would like to see how fraud gets defined in our law.

In our young democracy there is still no talk of the creation of judicial commissions of enquiry to investigate such abusive activities. Despite the fact that these abusive activities are probably aimed at bringing about additional increases to the country’s already huge drug bill. We have thus little option but to initiate the development of a body of consciousness that could empower people to unravel the truth for themselves.

In the real world situation we are still faced with the dogged implementation of the invalid HIV/Aids hypothesis as if it is scientific. The power and resources behind these commercial campaigns are tremendous. Eventually we might have no other option but to continue waiting for the people to decide through the slow process of democracy who is really bearing the brunt of all this madness. But before this agony escalates to its full potential, can you please help me; maybe it will still be possible for us to try and deflect some of the suffering related to this disaster.

I want to thank you in advance.

Yours truly

Johan Beaurain

Copies:

1.The Registrar, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville, 7535, or e-mail:

2. UWC students and staff.

3. Some Council Members and other interest groups.

4. The Minister of Education, Care of Private Secretary, Ms Amina Jacobs, Private Bag X603, PRETORIA, 0001, Tel: (012) 312 5501, Fax: (012) 323 5989, Cell: 082 809 0727 E-mail:

5. The Minister of Health, Care of Private Secretary, Mr. Mduduzile Masuku (Acting), Private Bag X399, PRETORIA, 0001, Tel: (012) 312 0825 Fax: (012) 325 5526 Cell: 082 572 7196, E-mail: ,

6. Dr. Saleem Badat, EO: CHE, Telephone: Telephone: +27 12 - 392 9119, Fax: +27 12 - 392 9110, E-mail:

SCANNED DOCUMENT

Dir. line/lyn:………...

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR

Ref./Verwys:………...

31 MAY 2005

Mr Beaurain

23 Lower Collingwood Road

Observatory

Cape Town

7925

Dear Mr Beaurain

Please be informed that Senate, at it's meeting on 24 May 2005, accepted the recommendations of the Senate Research Committee and the Senate Executive Committee regarding your research project.

In view of the fact that you have not obtained ethics clearance you may unfortunately not proceed with this research project at the University of the Western Cape.

With best wishes

DR I MILLER

REGISTRAR

A Place of Quality, A Place to Grow

28 April 2005

From: Johan Beaurain, 23 Lower Collingwood Road, Observatory, 7925. Telephone 021 4479727 or 072 2064 911 or e-mail: or

To: The Registrar, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville, 7535, or e-mail:

Dear Doctor Miller

Re: Objection to the bureaucracy employed in processing my application for ethical approval of my research.

You will recall our discussion of 05 April 2005 when the Chairperson of the Student Representative Council, and myself were meeting with you in your office. During this meeting the following was communicated to you:

• That during the year of 2004, my supervisor has refused to read and comment on large sections of my theoretical chapter, claiming that my work is falling outside my research focus.
• That I was then encouraged by my supervisor to change my research focus.
• After the changes in my research focus, my supervisor then started telling me that my work is unethical and that it would not be approved by the structures of UWC.
• Despite my requests for an explanation as to why my work will be considered as unethical, I was not provided with such.
• That I then told my supervisor that I will only be able to make adjustments if I am provided with a reason as to why my work is unethical.
• That I was then requested to make an application for ethical approval.
• That I have been informed on 02 November 2004 that the Education Higher Degrees Committee has decided that my research is unethical without being told exactly why my work is unethical.
• That I then again informed the Faculty of Education that I would only be able to make the necessary adjustments once I am provided with adequate information as to why the research is unethical.
• That I am not being supervised as my supervisor has withdrawn, and that I am expecting UWC to appoint another supervisor if my supervisor remains unwilling to continue with her supervisory duties.
• That I am a legitimate student at UWC, and that the university is expecting me to pay my outstanding fees.
• That it is not possible for me to communicate to documents (papers) that I receive by post. I am entitled to academic interaction on my research focus.

You then promised to investigate the matter.

On Tuesday 12 April 2005 you phoned me, and informed me as follows:

• That you discussed the matter with Professor Meerkotter who told you that; I was already informed as to why my research project is unethical; that nothing further should be done until the matter will be finalised at the Senate meeting that will sit during May 2005;
• That you agreed with Professor Meerkotter.
• That Senate could possibly confirm the decision of the Senate Executive Committee that also took a decision saying that my research is unethical. But that there is still the chance that the Senate could change the decision of the Senate Executive Committee.
• That you are expecting me to wait for the decision of the Senate that will sit during the month of May 2005.

During this conversation I tried to communicate to you that:

• I already expressed my dissatisfaction to Professor Meerkotter about the fact that the matter was referred to the Senate Research Committee of UWC without me being given clear academic guidance as to why my project is unethical. Neither was I granted the opportunity to correct the problems related to my application for ethical approval before it was referred to the Senate Research Committee.
• I fail to see how the matter could be finalised by the Senate of UWC, as I would obviously still have many enquiries, and would therefore also require further clear academic guidance from the university.
• I will respond to you in writing to clarify my position.

My clarification follows:

It appears to me as if the university and I have some difficulty in communicating with each other. The documentation that served in front of the Senate Executive Committee of 15 March 2005 contains also many misconceptions and inaccuracies in relation to my issue. An extract of the document that served before the University of the Western Cape’s Senate Executive Committee of 15 April 2005 follows:

5.12 Mr. J Beaurain (Education)

Research Project: An exploration of the effect of a learning

programme based on Ayurveda on learners' views of health and well-being.

The Senate Research Committee did not agree to clear the ethics of the project, based on the following:

- Questionnaire is extremely biased

- Applicant does not subscribe to a National or International code of Ethics, such as the one set out by the Medical Research Council on its website, nor does the proposal meet normal ethical standards, nor does the applicant adequately justify departure from normal standards;

- applicant is insufficiently read in the grounding philosophy which he claims to be basing the work upon;

- in particular, the general rule of “do no harm” is blatantly endangered by the views which the applicant wishes to impart to minors in a "captive" classroom setting under the pretext of wishing to do research, and on the accepted world view of the subject massive harm would result;

- applicant is entitled to academic and other freedoms of belief, but not to do harm in researching how to teach them;

- applicant would need to establish himself and the beliefs much more substantially at the theoretical level, as it were to win the debate on paper, long before exposing himself and his ideas to minor schoolchildren in UWC's name, or, the committee surmised , the name of any other university;

- applicant has indicated his refusal to accept the supervisor's authority and the faculty committee's recommendation in this matter, such that the supervisor has declined to supervise him further: an unsupervised master's research thesis is by definition unethical, as is the refusal to accept the university's ethical authority.

I therefore decided that it might be useful for me to try and clarify matters by supplying you with my written comments to this document. I will appreciate it if you could ensure that Senate has access to these comments before they consider my issue on 24 May 2005. My comments follow:

Senate Executive Committee: Questionnaire is extremely biased

Johan Beaurain: Thank you very much for this observation. I will appreciate specific advise in terms of how I should be rephrasing the questions in my questionnaire in a more neutral manner.

Senate Executive Committee: Applicant does not subscribe to a National or International code of Ethics,

Johan Beaurain: This is correct but I do not know where I can get a national or international code of ethics. I am nevertheless willing to consider all suggestions of aligning my research project to be adhering to suitable ethical principles.

Senate Executive Committee: such as the one set out by the Medical Research Council on its website,

Johan Beaurain: I downloaded several documents related to the MRC ethical code, the more I read the more I became convinced that the principles contained therein could be worthy of academic consideration. But I want to emphasise that in terms of exercising a truly independent role as academic watchdogs of a diverse society we need to remain independent in our ethical approach. We therefore need to remember that it is absolutely essential that we should challenge all accepted worldviews and challenge their basis in science.

And let me state again that I have done extensive literature research that leads me to conclude that the HIV/Aids hypothesis is invalid. In the light of this I would like to reiterate that should someone be diagnosed as hiv-postive this is in effect giving that person a death sentence. In my honest opinion the promotion of such abusive actions by any organisation should not be regarded as ethical conduct. To back this up just merely consider the accepted phenomenon known as the placebo effect.

Senate Executive Committee: nor does the proposal meet normal ethical standards,

Johan Beaurain: What do the Senate Executive Committee of UWC regard as normal ethical standards.

Senate Executive Committee: nor does the applicant adequately justify departure from normal standards;

Johan Beaurain: If there is a document that outlines the normal ethical standards that UWC would require me to abide to, I will be willing to consider such. But could you please also indicate where in your opinion I am currently departing from the normal ethical standards.

Senate Executive Committee: applicant is insufficiently read in the grounding philosophy which he claims to be basing the work upon;

Johan Beaurain: That is possible; I am willing to read any additional literature that the Senate Executive Committee would require me to read. Can the Senate Executive Committee please refer me to other sources that you would consider as absolutely essential reading for my particular research focus?

Senate Executive Committee: in particular, the general rule of "do no harm" is blatantly endangered by the views which the applicant wishes to impart to minors

Johan Beaurain: Please explain exactly how the Senate Executive Committee imagines that I could possibly endanger the lives of minors. How could empowering learners not to fall victim to a false diagnosis that can precipitate their demise possibly harm such learners? I am referring to their demise as a result of a false diagnosis that could cause such mental distress that it could result in their premature death. Therefore the question arises is it not less harmful then to provide these learners with diverse scientific viewpoints on the subject? Is there a possibility that such knowledge could possibly empower them to decide for themselves? Should they then during their future ever fall victim to a fraudulent HIV/AIDS diagnosis; or accidentally in a moment of foolishness getting themselves diagnosed as HIV positive; or if the condom broke; this need not necessarily mean a death sentence to them, but could merely be an incorrect diagnosis based on an invalid HIV test. In principle I have no objection against the use of condoms provided that the use of condoms are not propagated in a manner that could possibly restrict peoples right to express their sexuality.

Senate Executive Committee: in a "captive" classroom setting

Johan Beaurain: I fail to see why I should neglect my academic duty of aiming to raise the consciousness of all citizens including minors in a “captive” classroom setting. Can you please explain your thinking?

Senate Executive Committee: under the pretext of wishing to do research,

Johan Beaurain: If the Senate Executive Committee regards my intended research as a pretext, I would like to know what the Senate Executive Committee regards as the real agenda behind my research.

Senate Executive Committee: and on the accepted world view of the subject massive harm would result;