In a article in the British isles Medical Journal, researchers G.
Smith and J. Pell have undertaken to analyze the potency of parachutes
in "gravitationally challenging" situations by randomized, double blind
clinical studies. This methodology has been so engrained in the mindset
of cancer researchers in the world as to become accepted as of having by
which scientifically valid results may very well be having any value.
They were surprised to find that out of a huge, world wide data basic
these researchers were unable to identify a single randomized,
controlled trial to determine the efficacy of parachute treatment in
gravitationally challenging circumstances. This is appalling in view of
the billions associated with dollars worth of reports that have gone
into developing this methodology since the gold standard for analysis
involving human life.
While the use of parachutes is often limited
to purely volunteer activities, as with posting this colors by dropping
in the sky onto the field of athletic event, there are far more
dangerous applications that beg to get addressed. For decades, brave
paratroopers have also been mandated to risk their lives by employing
these unproven devices. One interesting result will be that commercial
airlines get refused to issue parachutes for their passengers and for
justified reason. One aviation expert, speaking on condition connected
with anonymity, has stated flat out that his company will never assume
the liability inherent in recommending the application of such untested
devices regarding passengers.
There is obviously an instantaneous
and urgent need to fix this deficiency in this kind of major field of
people endeavor. The perception that parachutes are of value is
predicated strictly on anecdotal proof. It is a generally accepted axiom
that proof based conclusions, not supported by randomized medical
trials is sorely hoping. It does not seem whatsoever unreasonable to
proceed immediately to improve this sore deficiency which is so
pervasive throughout the particular aviation industry.
An
effective clinical trial that may put this controversy to rest
immediately does not are most often beyond the bounds involving reason
and practicality. Roughly speaking, it could be carried out from a
readily available test vehicle such as old reliable C-130 aircraft. This
craft has proven a workhorse the world over and its credentials are
usually impeccable. The entire sequence of events in relation to the
trial could be carried out in just minutes, seconds if the need be. It
need only involve many test subjects (sufferers, if need be to help keep
the terminology continuous), say 100, each of which might wear a
parachute and jump out in the signal of the main investigator (jump
master from the vernacular). It should be noted that the certain number
of these candidates would be wearing normal parachutes while a specific
number, say 5 for illustration, would be wearing what appeared by all
accounts to be normal parachutes but would, in fact, be packed with
ordinary bed sheets. Neither the jumper, the jump master nor the
airplane pilot would know that have been the dummy packs. For the moment
it's not necessarily necessary to prescribe exactly what this number
would possibly be. This is better left into a committee of
mathematicians in the National Cancer Institute to discover what number
of "paracebos" would provide most conclusive data.
The opportunity
for brilliance in data reduction can be manifold. For example, beyond
the mere morbidity data, we could envision varying degrees of injury,
and even predict survival estimates for those who did not suffer your
inconvenience of death at impact with all the earth. This could easily
provide gainful employment for numerous research technicians. Of course
there can be necessary and proper costs. Surely the pilot and co-pilot
should be rewarded handsomely for their particular participation, not to
mention the main investigator (jump grasp). Perhaps the biggest expense
of all would be the media blitz to sponsor volunteers. It is to be
expected that intense pressure need to be exerted to raise awareness
around the need for such testing lastly get these brave characters to
volunteer. A strong call thus to their obligation to fellow air
travelers globally and their role as courageous scientists in a brave
new venture need to be sufficient. As a note about expenses, it should
not be essential to pay these brave souls anything as their
participation in this noble cause should, itself, be reward enough.
After all, they did get a free ride on the air with complimentary light
drinks, free use of the parachute, free instruction from the jump master
and a memorable descent to Mother nature. What more could an acceptable
participant ask? Financial support should possibly be easily
forthcoming from companies Boeing, Lockheed and the commercial airlines
who stand to benefit greatly from the results.
Now of course these
is nonsense - or would it be? Even as this is being written, thousands
of Americans are increasingly being subjected to trials off sorts, many
of which have minimum merit other than the truth that funds needed to
always be allocated if funding renewal for next years projects might be
maintained. One simply does not return unspent money to be able to
Federal Grantors. Over the years, even the terminology provides changed.
Recent papers have known as patients not as fellow human beings but as
"units" and patient death is now being reported as some sort of
"survival event". One of the good stuff that came outside the holocaust
was the Helsinki Accord on the Experimentation With Human Subject
matter. This noble document offers many good clauses, perhaps the best
that was the one needing the advised consent on the subject. How many
times, a thoughtful person might wonder, has this been buried from sight
in a very pile of forms in addition to mundane paperwork. Money is
available in copious quantities but not without the consenting patient.
To paraphrase the flick line, "No Buck Rogers, No bucks! ".
As one
who provides enjoyed a rewarding career in the physical sciences, I am
all permanently research. Its that other kind i always object to - the
type that proceeds blindly decrease an unproductive path for any half a
century and will not yield to introspective study of its true
effectiveness. The criticism that occurs flying at anyone whom dares to
question runs like how can anything which is why we have spent billions
upon quantities of dollars, the expenditure of 1000s of human lives and
the efforts thousands of researchers possibly be mistaken? There is no
discussion allowed on the fact the per capita cancer death rate in the
united kingdom has decreased only slightly within the last few century
despite all on the above.
The first question I'd personally ask is
whose mindset is being served? Our present system, adorned as it is
holy writ, is the darling of the NCI and the numerous centers and
thousands of researchers that feed from it. A recent expose with CBS
"Sixty Minutes" caught Duke University making use of their hands in the
cookie jar whereby these were fudging their numbers to create their drug
look great. Perhaps the misplacing of the single decimal point in a
particular direction could mean huge amount of money. In this case
concern for that well being of individuals clearly fell second to
earning money. A reasonable person may wonder if this is not the norm in
this day of greed and avarice. The point of watch of researchers will
doubtless be to carry on the course regardless of results or how many
poor souls who will probably die from cancer. I would not go as far as
to call this "fiddling while Rome burns" but I do think that comes
dangerously near the truth.
Surely the American people are
entitled to know just how a lot of their fellow citizens get died in
these trials both in one payemnt and on a every year basis. It seems to
me until this is every bit as important since the budgets in dollars.
Beyond that, I would personally prefer to know how a lot of those in the
placebo arms on the trials, those who received simply sterilized water,
actually had positive reactions. This is not as silly mainly because it
sounds. There is a identified phenomena of human behavior that is
referred to as the Hawthorne Effect. This was first recognized in
evaluations with the Westinghouse Hawthorne plant inside Chicago.
Results there showed beyond doubt that humans are designed for
unexpectedly positive response from the very fact that attention was
being paid to them. Speaking for the many us who have survived cancer
death sentences utilizing mind/body healing techniques, I should not be
whatsoever surprised if this variety was higher that anybody might
imagine. The resilience of the human spirit is usually a marvelous thing
that is usually difficult for researchers for you to quantify.
As
one coming coming from a successful career in the particular physical
sciences where experimentation was a life style, I am in ugh implying
that research will be necessarily bad. I merely wish to point out that
after a half century of far too many disappointing results it may very
well be worthwhile to at least find the possibility of another approach,
drawn from the patient's perspective that appears to include exciting
possibilities. As a patient, I am not at all concerned with either the
particular politics of cancer investigation or in peeling back again the
foreskin of technology. I SIMPLY WANT FOR GETTING WELL and anything
that can be shown to be promising represents an interest worthy of
discussion. Let us therefore check out clinical trials as a new purely
binary proposition. Think of this being an either/or or black/white
idea. A treatment is administered to a number of patients with only a
couple of results possible - a positive response or no response.
Patients
receiving this should expect a good end result, not kept in the actual
dark by this statistical nonsense. Quite the contrary, the placebo
effect is encouraged to operate its wonders in addition to the efficacy
of the medication. A 30% placebo impact, added to a 30% substance effect
should yield the 60% favorable outcome. The Lord only is aware of how
may good drugs have been passed over because these were not allowed this
freedom of expression of most that is good and powerful within the
human constitution. Before long this factor we call preponderance of
evidence will give you the overwhelming proof that is required for
oncologists on the leading line of treatment in order to proceed with
cautious confidence. Lives will be saved that may otherwise be lost
inside statistically and politically accurate clinical trials so
pervasive in the country. Of course, this will be approached with
condemnation everywhere, despite the fact which our present system has
received such minimal return from the money and lives expended during
the last half century.
As for me, I will err on the side of
caution. I will not jump out of any airplanes, with or without a new
parachute and I sure for the reason that world will not post myself into
anybody's clinical trial.
Back in 1993 Gerald Light survived a 20
single lb kidney tumor that hereafter went metastatic to far-away
organs. After all medical treatments had failed along with the dreadful
"only three more months" death sentence have been delivered. He worked
out some sort of self- directed program associated with guided imagery
that elicited a remission in 3 months. He has served some sort of three
year term to be a Director of the National Kidney Cancer Association.
Through his webpage he maintains an energetic world wide mentoring
program containing yielded many similar remissions of cases considered
to be hopeless. His book has recently been translated into Chinese along
with Hungarian. A credible Scientist, in his career previous to cancer,
he achieved some 20 technological know-how patents in 9 international
locations.
This article is written by
anabolic steroids
