If someone has a cardiac arrest. Are there any scientific double blind or other studies that prove that...
emergency medical intervention is superior than simply doing nought or doing something else like annointing the patient next to colloidal silver on the forhead?
Answer: No. That would be considered unethical. To do such a study, you would have to randomize citizens to either the treatment arm (doing all the stuff we are qualified to do in ACLS..Advanced Cardiac Life Support) or doing something else, plus there would enjoy to be a valid placebo. I cant' think of a way to do placebo shock treatments.
Similar things hold been done in animal studies as expected, but not to study "alternative" ways of resuscitation. Just to compare things that are plausible for biochemical or physiological reasons.
ACLS for cardiac arrest is continually being updated...which"drugs to use, how plentiful joules of electricity to use for defibrillation, the value of just doing chest compressions alone or do they enjoy to be ventilated as well etc.
We do know that doing nil doesn't work very well, which is to voice, they die. We also know that the best outcomes are for those who get bystander CPR right away, as most cardiac arrest is due to an arrhythmia, like ventricular fibrillation, and time is muscle.
Even so, the statistics on relations surviving to hospital discharge after being resuscitated are not good..
Double blind research would be unprincipled. The type of research that would be done here would be done by taking case histories of cardiac patients and what methods were used and and track rate of survival per method. In extra they may track how the patients fared relative to specific after effects of heart attack and severity of heart attack and track those variables relative to methods used. They would have to run this study surrounded by multiple hospitals or for a long period of time in direct to collect a large enough example group to track trends.
You may like to look into some medical research journals to see what types of studies hold been done in this nouns if this is of interest to you. Research of the heart is extensive and I am sure that studies of this nature exist.
Perhaps you can go to medical conservatory and figure out ethical methods to study and answer these questions..
Are you serious?!?!?! When family go into cardiac arrest, there's no studying. It's fix the problem, or the person dies. It would be notably unethical to even suggest using the person for a study. If you cogitate annointing a person with colloidal silver will work, afterwards start the study the same way adjectives other accepted medical practices are originally studied. Get yourself some lab rats, trigger a heart attack, annoint some with colloidal silver and do nil with the control group. If those with the silver consistently celebration better than the control, then you have .evidence that it works. WHEN they adjectives die, make sure you report your findings to the rest of the nuts that think that colloidal silver heal everything Yes..the CDC keeps robust stats on the number of patients who die horribly because they were inept to obtain emergency medical intervention.
However, a double blind study would be unethical (not to mention illegal) for this type of situation. So you'll hold to settle for the correct scientific methodology.
BTW, colloidal silver does nothing, whether you "anoint a character on the forehead" with it (lol), or injest it. It has no treatment effect whatsoever for any condition. The best entity I can say about it is it's probably not toxic similar to other heavy metals (mercury, cadmium, lead etc.) The solitary heavy metal that has a treatment effect is gold ingots. Gold has some worth for treating inflammatory arthritis. However, far superior treatments exist these days..
Nope. The situation you're describing is parallel to one contained by a book called "How doctors think."
In it, one of the top cardiac surgeons contained by the US explained that the medical literature said "you only operate on a baby's heart which has a hole between the two ventricles if in that is at least a 2-1 ratio of blood backflow." He had see plenty of patients which had the ability to live fine near that ratio and not need surgery, so eventually he looked into the the source, and it was the median of a vote by a council (aka not contained by anyway scientifically tested), so he got the procedure for heart surgeons officially changed.
To quote him "at hand are certain things that you really cannot test scientifically, and abundantly of what we do is essentially guesswork. To have actually gotten the correct information, we would hold needed a lot of volunteers and then tracked them over their entire time, a prohibitively expensive study with major ethical implication for those who died. Since that's not an option we have to use cultured guesses instead."
To my knowledge, the only time notes of this nature was available be during the Halocast in concentration camps, which is in truth where a large slice of current medicine comes from (but that's a bit harder to prove). If you were put a bet on then, the questions you're asking would enjoy been testable, nowadays it isn't. Instead we own simply have to go beside the unscientific approach which has "no proof." If someone has a heart attack and no intervention, consequently they probably will die.
For what it's worth though, I think feeding someone capsicum or giving them an intravenous injection of hydrogen peroxide into a blood vessel feed the heart are the two best options available for stopping a heart attack, but they have falling out of favor for defibrillators (which cost more)..
There is no "study" on that one. Much investigation have gone into the emergency treatment, evaluating different protocols for the best results. I think the "one-hour window" is still necessary.