Mary

What you say here has much truth to it.  But I'd like to qualify it.

In many studies the participants _do_ find out whether they got the
drug or not - though they will not find out until the evaluations are
complete.  In some studies, if the study shows that the drug is
successful, the patients who received the placebo may have the
option of switching to the real drug at the end of the evaluation
period - getting access to it before it is generally available to
others.

Charlie can ask about this and will be told in advance
whether this will be the case.

In some new drug studies, the number of people getting a placebo
may be less than the number getting the drug.  There may, for
example, be three or four groups - one with placebo and others
with different dosages of the drug.  Charlie can ask about this too
and will be given full information about the assignment of people
to treatments.

In addition, not all studies require that no other drugs be given.
The study may or may not allow patients to take galantamine-
memantine in addition to the experimental treatment.  I was in
a prostate cancer radiation study where patients were allowed,
at their option, to also take androgen deprivation therapy.  Some
studies suggested that ADT contributed to longer survival rates
and the study investigators felt that, in good conscience, they
should not forbid its use.

Finally, although I think it is a good idea to try the drugs you
recommend, it is my understanding that they don't actually slow
the progression of the disease.  What they do is help alleviate
the symptoms, allowing the patient to function at a higher level
in spite of her disease progression.  And they don't work for all
patients.  They are very far from a "sure thing".  So taking those
drugs may or may not give as much benefit as the investigational
drug (though of course the patient might not, as you say, get
the investigational drug.)

Clinical trials are never conducted with secret protocols.  There
is a law in the U.S. that requires total disclosure in great detail
of all of the procedures to be used in the trial.  Charlie can ask
for, and should receive, detailed, written information about the
trial process, and should get good answers to any questions,
including the excellent questions you raise, about the nature of
the trial.

There is a general feeling among the public that clinical trials
researchers are a heartless bunch of scientists who treat
people as laboratory rats, not really interested in what happens
to the patients.

I did not find that to be true in my experience.  Quite the opposite.
I believe that the doctors who treated me were trying their
hardest to cure my cancer.  That was three years ago and,
knocking on wood, I think they may have done it.

   Alan

Thaks to all for the input, she had pretty much decided not to go for the
program
but I was looking for more info as whether to try to influence her
otherwise.
We are just getting over the shock from last week and I think she is still
in denial
since her friends tell her they don't think she has AD, it is very mild yet
and they don't
see the small signs by being around every day.
She has never been one for details and would just as soon not get involved
as the saying
goes, that is why I'm on the computer and not her. Due to our age we may not
have to
go through it too long. Will check with the Dr. this week and let him know
our decision
and see what he recommends.
Thanks all from sunny Central Ca.

June, my Mother also saw no benefit with Aricept, or Excelon.  It was
believed that her dementia was due to a series of mini-strokes.
However, she did see a major benefit with Xyprexa.  If it wasn't for
that drug, we would have had a lot less time with her.  I know there
have been some recent items in the news about Xyprexa.  All I can say
is that it helped us greatly.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com