Read the latest research on this blog

Raw Survey Results
Home ] Up ] [ Raw Survey Results ] CÚcile Jadin ] Talks FAQ ] FWIW Protocol ] Garth Nicholson ] Alfred Blasi ] Townhalls ] Marshall Protocol Risks ]

 

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.

Google

Home

Original 2001 WebSite as PDF for download

Looking for something, look in the Contents or do a Site Search