[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment
Howard and friends,
I also meant to report that there are no human studies reported, but
Shen and others in IL did prevent/cure murine AIDS (Friend virus-caused)
in work reported in a series of papers during the '80s into the early
'90s. I have distributed those to the list in the past. There was ref to
human studies being inaugurated by del Regato, but I didn't find
anything in a literature search a few months ago.
You can find the following letter in Am J Clin Oncol 1989:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis
t_uids=2667327&dopt=Abstract
If so, please send a copy.
Please consider tracking him down. (In a 1998 historical article (all of
his writings in the '90s) his affiliation is "Department of Radiology,
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL")
Please let us know what you find.
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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>