Re: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment

["Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>]

Is anyone aware of a study of radiation (perhaps 75 R single dose) effect on

AIDS?



Any dramatic effect ought to show up in a crude srudy, although it would be

best to have double-blind sham (placebo) control, T-cell and other objective

measures, etc.



  Howard Long



----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)" <Jim.Muckerheide@state.ma.us>

To: "Chris Davey" <chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca>; "Ted Rockwell"

<tedrock@starpower.net>; "ANS-PIE" <mbrexchange@list.ans.org>; "Rad-Sci-L"

<rad-sci-l@WPI.EDU>; "RADSAFE" <owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:38 PM

Subject: RE: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment





> Thanks Chris,

>

> It will be interesting to see how this is eventually applied in the face

> of current medical research practice that tends to let 1000 people die

> if there is a chance that an intervention (practice or drug) will injure

> anyone, until the risks are fully quantified (through clinical trials),

> and then if some previously unquantified risk appears, tend to stop

> using the drug even if thousands of people are being helped/saved.

>

> But then this doesn't apply for drugs that have been in long-term use

> even if they are known to have small benefits but kill many people every

> year.

>

> And then there is the killing of a million people from malaria that

> could be saved by the use of DDT, etc.

>

> With LDR, hundreds of people are killed from virulent infections every

> year with costly intensive use of costly antibiotics that could be

> quickly saved using LDR.

>

> Thanks.

> Regards, Jim

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Chris Davey [mailto:chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca]

> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:37 PM

> To: Ted Rockwell; ANS-PIE; Rad-Sci-L; RADSAFE

> Subject: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment

>

>

> Hi All,

>

> Please check out the following link:

> www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030924/04

> <http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030924/04>

>

> Note especially the second and third paragraphs:

>

> But what does it mean? "It means we'll be taking decisions much quicker

> and

> being willing to take some more risks, not risks with lives but to save

> lives," a World Health Organization (WHO) spokesperson told The

> Scientist.

>

> Jim Kim, advisor on HIV/AIDS and severe acute respiratory syndrome

> (SARS) to

> the WHO director-general , told The Scientist , "We are declaring an

> emergency because to bicker and argue while people are dying is not

> acceptable."

>

> To see authorities saying that it is necessary to take risks to save

> lives,

> and that bickering and arguing while people are dying is not acceptable,

> makes me think about our low level radiation treatments, which are not

> even

> risky, and would reduce the numbers of people dying, by a very large

> proportion.

>

> It's time the same attitude prevailed in radiation safety!

>

> Regards,

>

> Chris

>

> -- Provincial Radiation Safety Officer  Alberta Cancer Board

>    11560 University Avenue (Room 4027)

>    Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1Z2

>    Phone:  780-432-8665

>    Fax:    780-432-8986

>    Pager:  780-917-2043

>    Email:  chris.davey@cancerboard.ab.ca

>    Member of the Board of Directors,

>    Canadian Radiation Protection Association (CRPA)

>    CRPA Website:  www.crpa-acrp.ca

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>