Paul has been denied access to a clinical trial for the FOURTH TIME. Same reason as before, he is too sick. That is correct the really sick are systematically excluded from clinical trials in the United States. Can you say RIGGED RESULTS?
Our clinical trial apologists here in the US like to pretend that allowing more access for American citizens would somehow invalidate the results of our so called "scientific" clinical trials. They tell us that the reasons that patients are denied is so that the results obtained by the trials are more scientific, more accurate, more meaningful, etc. These "fake" scientists, who excluded my son and so many other Americans from clinical trials, put on an air of mysterious scientific superiority. But they are being scientific and they are NOT TELLING THE TRUTH!
FACT: ONLY 3% TERMINAL CANCER PATIENTS IN THE UNITED STATES GET ACCESS TO CLINICAL TRIALS!
That is correct 97% of terminal cancer patients are given NO CHANCE to live by these monsters. Yet they continue to pretend that the only thing holding up clinical trials is a lack of volunteers. What they mean is that they need access to huge numbers of volunteers so that they can carefully select the 3% who will likely give them the results they are looking for.
When patients with the worst symptoms are excluded, then the clinical trial folks do not obtain accurate results for the whole spectrum of patients that will be using these drugs. If the companies running the trials can carefully select only patients with the condition that are the most likely to get the results that the company wants, then that is NOT AN UNBIASED SCIENTIFIC TRIAL! It is like a rigged middle school science fair exhibit where the probable outcomes are known in advance and the experiment/trial is set up to be pushed in a BIASED DIRECTION.
If a student in middle school comes up with a hypothesis to test that says, "all canned beverages will make a tarnished penny shinny." He must test pennies against ALL kinds of canned drinks. If the student uses only carbonated drinks, then the sstudent will "prove" the hypothesis. Yet it is not really true. The experiment is wrong because it was skewed in one direction. Carbonated drinks are a special kind of canned drink because they contain CO2 (the carbonation) which when dissolved in water makes an acid. All pennies left to sit in carbonated drinks will get shinier, it' true. But they will get shinnier in any mild acid.; however, not all bottled drinks are carbonated. So do all canned beverages put a shine on a dull penny? No, of course not! The student has rigged the test by limiting the kinds of beverages to carbonated ones. The student's shiny pennies do not prove the hypothesis.
The same false results are being obtained with these so called "scientific" clinical trials done here in the US. The inputs are carefully selected so that the correct out put or outcome is assured. Limiting patients to only a very few select patients is not an unbiased, fair clinical trial. The results obtained are not good results. The results are biased and should not be trusted.
MORE ACCESS TO CLINICAL TRIALS IS NEEDED NOW!!! Not just for the good of the very sick like my son but mostly to make the trials scientific, accurate and so the trials give good trustworthy results.