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
No comments:
Post a Comment