Re: MODERATOR -- Working defintion of Experimental > Treatment

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I would advocate for treatments about which no official publications and

evaluations exist, which put them by force in the experimental field, even

if they have been known for more than four years. We have newbies arriving

all the time (and I have not been there myself for so long), and even the

old timers are not healthy enough to be there 24/7, reading and

understanding everthing.

It is often necessary to read things again and again to understand and have

an idea of the importance of this or that, and it's good to have the

opportunity to question real people rather than only dig in the archives.

My point of view, for what it is worth... Thanks for being such an effective

moderator, though, and keeping the high level of this group.

Sylvie

> From: Ken

>

> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 9:13 PM

> Subject: MODERATOR -- Working defintion of " Experimental

> Treatment "

>

>

>

> The definition of " experimental " can be subjective -- the definition

> that I would like to see used is:

>

> " A treatment whose results are speculated but for which there has not

> been enough patient-experience to draw conclusions from " .

>

> As a working criteria -- any treatment protocol that is over FOUR(4)

> years old is not experimental - unless it's a " forgotten or ignored

> protocol " . Many of the protocol may be inconclusive (which is very

> different than experimental).