 |
 |
The conclusion of a 5 year Double-blind placebo controlled experiment has resulted in a tentative conclusion that two plus two equals FOUR. A spokesman for the Research team said 'The findings should provide a new insight into the difficult subject of prescribing drugs for the treatment of Parkinson's Disease' Procedures; The study was carried out using a team of volunteers who were all Neurologists between the ages of 25 and 30 years. Using a double-blind random selection technique they were grouped in pairs and locked into cages, with two pairs in each cage. After five years, the subjects were released and counted. To the amazement of the Research team, the average number of neurologists in each cage was Four! ( Eight of the cages contained only three neurologists, but this was anticipated in the study, knowing how anti- social some neuros can be. An unexpected result was obtained wherein six cages were found to contain 5 people in each cage. The spokesman became rather agitated and refused to discuss this result. In summary, this new finding will have repercussions whenever prescriptions are produced, and in future in the manufacture and packaging of drugs, all of which can be approached confident in the knowledge that Two plus Two Equals Four. (At a 95% confidence level) ---------------------------------------------------------- No, I haven't flipped just yet: This bit of whimsy was provoked by the report concerning Ropinerol and Dyskinesia, which must come high in the list of statements of the obvious. I wrote this e-mail 7 days ago, when the Ropinerol report had just been published, but I labelled it Humour because it was, the start at least. It sank without leaving a ripple, so this time its serious. Am I the only one to find this report,( and the similar one published some months ago on using Ropinerol to treat early symptoms), a total waste of money? Even more worrying is the fact that they nearly failed to prove their point in this latest report, because of the way in which the procedure was defined Surely any neurologist worth his salt could ,after about two minutes of concentrated thought, make a confident and accurate prediction of the result of this study. On the other hand, maybe they would not predict the outcome correctly: I have my model to help me, and it has not let me down yet. This is a classic case showing research groups, without a working model, being forced effectively to poke the problem with a big stick, and see if it gets bitten off! It is obvious that the Ropinerol people are going to work their way through the age ranges , and the whole Parkinson's Circus ( Patients included) Are going to congratulate them on a splendid piece of work. I think it is a TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY. I just had a mischeivous thought: I don't see why the other Dopamine Agonist manufacturers should not read the Ropinerol result across to their drug, with no further testing...... Any comments? -- Brian Collins <[log in to unmask]> (60/39/34)