RE: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment

["yuan-chi luan" <nbcsoc@hotmail.com>]

My dear friends,



I do not know much about treatment or therapy with radiation, but I do 

bellieve It  is  not risky to petients, if  not with a acute high dose. The 

HPS and ANS stated that  radiation dose 50 mSv/y received need no risk 

estimation. Dr Luckey showed in his theoritical dose response curve, 50~100 

mSv/y of rediation received is maxmum beneficial to people, which proved by 

the Co-60 contamianted houses incident in Taiwan that could prevent almost 

all the cancer deaths of the residents lliving in  the Co-60 contamiantion 

houses. The radiation from the fission products in the Chernobyl reactor 

accident relesed to the reactor hall was similar to the fission products of 

a  nuclear explosion,it  could hurt and cause deaths of workers, but the 

200,000 emergency recovery workers who  clean-up the long time decayed and 

large space dispersed fission products had received average of 100 mSv 

chronic chronic dose in 1986-87. There should be 150 leukemia deaths 

observed in ten years after the accidnent based on the  LNT predication, yet 

no such fact even in 14 years and their spontaneous leukemia deaths had on 

contrary reduced.





Dr. Luckey said AIDS in his book that AIDS could be cured with radiation in 

mice test.  If radiation is also tried to therapy of AIDS, I suggested to 

use chronic dose of 50-100 mSv/y with  proper desighed irradiator. Even no 

good  effect observed, but no risk to produce and might prevent cancers.



I wish my suggestion would  benefit human health!



Best regards to all,



Y>C. Luan







------------------ oringinal message----------------------------

>From: "Jim Muckerheide" <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>

>To: "Howard Long" <hflong@pacbell.net>,        "Muckerheide, Jim  (CDA)" 

><Jim.Muckerheide@state.ma.us>,        "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>

>Subject: RE: Attitude to 'Risky' Treatment

>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:02:36 -0400

>

>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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>



_________________________________________________________________

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail