Randy Smith wrote:
> Excerpt from US NEWS and WORLD REPORT:
> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000828/trials.htm
>
> ...a variety of critics have declared that trials are rife with
> conflicts of interest, that the analysis of women is inadequate, and that
> study results can be all but useless because so many patients lie when they
> claim to have followed instructions...
Thats only half the problem. The other half of the problem is
that the patients unintentionally forget the instructions. The
third half of the problem is that patients dont really *know*
when they are doing something wrong or stupid, and the
more stupid the patient the more likely something goes wrong.
A couple years ago, I suggested developing a device of
some sort which would accurately measure all the inputs
into the body, and measure the results in some objective
fashion which is not dependent upon the unreliable
verbal communication channel. Of course, some serious
info-nudists are required to make this happen.
The first step I have heard of in this direction is dna.com,
whereby the volunteer fills in a questionaire about your
medical history, then they set up an appointment, come
to your home, draw some blood, analyse the DNA,
and if enough volunteers step forward, a big picture
will begin to emerge. Of course I volunteered, and
they are coming in a couple weeks for the blood.
If you wanna be part of that, goto www.dna.com. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:35 MDT