|
The following are the raw numbers and calculations [Cut and paste from
Excel]: 2006-03-27.
NOTE: These are survey results from surveys completed by hundred of
different people. The "Yea/Nay" is based on the survey and does not
necessarily reflect my own opinion.
|
Protocol |
100% |
80% |
60% |
40% |
20% |
No Change |
Lost Ground |
Major Adverse |
Gain |
% |
Loss |
% |
Same % |
Total |
Positive |
Risk |
Yea/Nay |
|
Ampligen |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
40% |
4 |
40% |
20% |
10 |
50% |
231.7% |
*no* |
|
Blasi |
2 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
15 |
1 |
0 |
23 |
59% |
1 |
3% |
38% |
39 |
96% |
0.0% |
1st |
|
Brown |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
40% |
0 |
0% |
60% |
5 |
100% |
0.0% |
1st |
|
Chenney |
0 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
13 |
3 |
3 |
11 |
37% |
6 |
20% |
43% |
30 |
65% |
77.2% |
2nd |
|
Cutler |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
100% |
0 |
0% |
33% |
3 |
100% |
0.0% |
? |
|
Dantini |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
33% |
1 |
17% |
50% |
6 |
67% |
128.7% |
*no* |
|
Erlander |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
75% |
0 |
0% |
25% |
4 |
100% |
0.0% |
? |
|
F&F Centers |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
100% |
2 |
29% |
29% |
7 |
78% |
110.3% |
*no* |
|
Ferran |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
57% |
1 |
14% |
29% |
7 |
80% |
0.0% |
1st |
|
FWIW |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
46% |
1 |
8% |
46% |
13 |
86% |
59.4% |
1st |
|
Guifenesin |
1 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
20 |
5 |
4 |
17 |
37% |
9 |
20% |
43% |
46 |
65% |
67.1% |
2nd |
|
HBOT |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25% |
0 |
0% |
75% |
4 |
100% |
0.0% |
? |
|
Hemex |
1 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
6 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
13 |
54% |
6 |
25% |
21% |
24 |
68% |
128.7% |
*no* |
|
ImmunoPro |
1 |
3 |
4 |
10 |
15 |
26 |
2 |
14 |
33 |
44% |
16 |
21% |
35% |
75 |
67% |
144.1% |
*no* |
|
Jadin |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
47% |
4 |
27% |
27% |
15 |
64% |
154.4% |
*no* |
|
Marshall |
6 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
9 |
10 |
14 |
15 |
31% |
24 |
50% |
19% |
48 |
38% |
225.2% |
*no* |
|
Naltrexone |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
100% |
2 |
22% |
22% |
9 |
82% |
171.6% |
*no* |
|
Nicholson |
0 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
53% |
2 |
12% |
35% |
17 |
82% |
90.8% |
1st |
|
Petrovic |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
67% |
0 |
0% |
33% |
3 |
100% |
0.0% |
? |
|
Rife Machine |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
33% |
1 |
33% |
33% |
3 |
50% |
0.0% |
? |
|
Salt/C |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
47% |
0 |
0% |
53% |
19 |
100% |
0.0% |
1st |
|
Stratton |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
50% |
0 |
0% |
50% |
2 |
100% |
0.0% |
? |
|
Teitelbaum |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
14 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
27% |
2 |
9% |
64% |
22 |
75% |
70.2% |
1st |
|
Williams |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
50% |
1 |
17% |
33% |
6 |
75% |
0.0% |
1st |
|
All Protocols |
16 |
37 |
38 |
35 |
56 |
152 |
29 |
54 |
182 |
44% |
83 |
20% |
36% |
417 |
69% |
100.0% |
1st |
- Gain= Sum of 20-100%
- Loss= Sum of Lost Ground + Major Adverse
- Total= sum of all reports
- Positive= Gain/(Gain + Loss). Chance of change being positive.
- > 50% recommended, >= 71% (the average rating) suggested.
- You want at least even odds to improve.
- Risk Coef= Adverse for ALL Protocols / Total for ALL Protocols
- Risk = (Major Adverse/ Total) / Risk Coef.
- < 100% ideal.
- You want the risk of an adverse reaction to be less than picking a
protocol at random.
- Yea/Nay: Formula: =IF(P3<5,"?",IF(Q3 <=0.6,"**no**",IF(R3 >
2,"*no*",IF(R3 >1,"3rd",IF(Q3 >=Positive,"1st","2nd")))))
- 1st Choice: Indicates the best odds - better than average for the
good, less than average for the bad
- 2nd Choice: Reasonable odds ( > 50%), lower risk of adverse reaction
( < Average risk)
- 3rd Choice: Reasonable odds of improvement ( > 50%), risk of adverse reaction
(> Average Risk but < 2x Average Risk)
- ? - not sufficient data (less than 6 experiences)
- *no* - Betting against the odds... (long shot): odds of
improvement ( <= 50%), risk of adverse reaction (> 2x Average)
Explanation:
A rational person would want a protocol that performs better than any
random protocol. Perform better is broken down into two parts:
- Positive results if a change occurs should be at least that seen across
all protocols (i.e. 71% or more)
- Risk of a severe adverse reaction should be less than seen across all
protocols ( i.e. 100% or less)
Positive Response: When a person tries a protocol there are three main
types of outcomes:
- No change at all (nothing happens)
- Get better
- Get worst
With the responses of PWCs being so different with little predictive testing,
it becomes almost a toss of a die. If there is no change, apart from money and
time -- you are no worst. If there is a change, you prefer to have a better
chance of getting better than getting worst. This is calculated from
existing experience above. If it is 100%, there is little chance that the
treatment will make you worst, the average person with CFS will be better after
this protocol. If it is 50% than it is even odds. If it is less than 50%, the
average person with CFS will be worst after this protocol. A rational behavior
would be to go for treatments with a good chance of getting better and avoiding
those with a high risk of getting worst. Since you are not compelled to do a
protocol, then you want better than average odds before doing one.
Risk Factor: The last thing that any PWC wants is a severe adverse
reaction. With many protocols there is a risk of that. About 15% of
peoples reactions reported severe adverse reactions across all of these
protocols. You really do not want to be at a greater risk than 15% of having a
severe adverse reaction. Many people would prefer to have no risk for a
severe adverse reaction (0%). A rational person would usually pick protocols
that have a risk less than the average risk (100%) - think of this analogy: if
you are going to drive a car, you will usually buy the car with the safety
record that is better or equal to the average safety. This is what the risk
factor is -- the safety rating of the protocol with 100% being average, 50%
being twice as safe, 200% being twice as dangerous as the average protocol.
| |
Home
Original 2001 WebSite as PDF for download
|
