 |
 |
hi again mary At 07:47 1998/12/17 EST, you wrote, in part: >...I was present at the original announcement of the >impending study involving fetal transplant research at >the Neurological Institute at Columbia Presbyterian >Medical Center. I recall that the word "sham" was briefly >bandied about as being a bit misleading. The patients >involved in the study certainly knew that half would be >placebos; and each had a 50-50 chance of getting the tissue. >AND... at the same time "placebos" would be offered the >true procedure at no cost upon successful results of the study... the offer of a 'true' procedure as part of the conditions of being in the study that ruth ashley so courageously made herself available for is something that was touched on very lightly by tom brokaw on NBC news nbc's emphasis seemed to be on the potentially sensational aspect; i.e. does the public really know 'what's going on?' i also noticed that they very very carefully did not mention the type of implant that ruth had; 'fetal cell tissue' seems to be on their 'dirty-word' list on the positive side our cyber-sis ruth was shown playing the piano, riding a bicycle, driving a car although not specifically mentioned as benefits from the implant i presume that all of those activities were the result of her improvement after the true operation is this another example of good news coming second to negative 'catastrophizing' and 'sensationalizing' for the sake of ratings? i hope not but maybe i should copy this message to the wall street journal and to nbc news and ask them directly irregardless, to ruth and ed ashley - you did good! janet janet paterson - 51 now /41 dx /37 onset - almonte/ontario/canada [log in to unmask]