[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment
Howard and friends,
Several years ago (1996 or so?) an HIV patient got an experimental
transplant (from a baboon) procedure (back when AIDS activists defeated
the FDA/medical practice I described below, i.e., let people die while
playing the research/clinical trials game). He was given a relatively
low dose of radiation (because we "suppress the immune system" before a
transplant!?). The transplant failed but the patient did well, and he
acknowledged that it could be attributed to the radiation. He remained
an activist leader and became an "insider" to the new AIDS-oriented
research and clinical trials.
Over several years Myron Pollycove either never got a response or no
help from his former colleagues at UCSF who were involved in the test
and beyond. I last tried to contact him around 2001 when his name
surfaced about some AIDS activism. He was still then active (physically
as well as politically, but the reports were not clear about his general
health status). I didn't get a response.
Thank you.
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Long [mailto:hflong@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:57 AM
To: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA); Chris Davey; Ted Rockwell; ANS-PIE;
Rad-Sci-L; RADSAFE
Subject: Re: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>