Username: tstowe

InnoCentive Challenge #: 7906523

InnoCentive Challenge Name: Approaches for Shortening Clinical Oncology
Trials
Doc. Number: (internal use only)

Fill out this submission form to submit your Solution to InnoCentive.

Enter the text for your solution proposal in the space below.
Please use Times New Roman font, at 12 point, and do not change page properties, spacing,
tabs, or margins. Also, do not enter personal information such as your name, telephone number
or address. Just enter your User Name in the space above.

Please describe your Solution below.

Use as much space as you need. If you want to attach supporting files, return to the Submit a
Solution section of your Project Room. You can attach files there, and upload them to
InnoCentive.

Remember to structure your Solution in response to the Challenge. This

typically includes the following sections:
• Introduction and Background
• Detailed Description of the Solution
• Experimental Section (if required)
• References and Notes
• Supporting Information (for example, spectral data or reference to samples submitted)
• Conclusion

Submit your Solution Form to InnoCentive:

• Go to www.innocentive.com and login using your username and password.
• Select the Challenge from your list of Open Challenges.
• Click the “Submit a Solution” button on the right side of the screen of your Project Room.
• Select “Browse” to access the files on your computer and select the file or files you plan to
submit.
• Press the “Send to InnoCentive” button.
• Confirm your email address and enter your phone number so we may contact you if needed.
• Press the “Submit” button and a confirmation of the receipt of your submission will display.
• If you have questions regarding the challenge or your submission use the “Messages” button
located in your Project Room for the Challenge.

My Solution:

Empirically I know that all of us have noticed that there is much room
for improvement and wish for understanding and as well truth in observation
in achievement in paradigms that cross any profession that is highly valued
and as well important by social and sound minded individuals. In this
statement is recognition of a solution for this takes into account a measure of
trying not only criteria using analyses and taking into elements when
accountability is summed.
Also "boxing in" [in reference to the axiomatic statement, "think
outside of the box"] the problems, a complicating human inference series in
understanding research and going over data comes to mind. The data that is
taken in phase I may intially confuse and as well lead in a statistically
average way over a percentile to seek a certain rationale in proceeding to a
third stage and as well the environmental makeup in the theater of the trials
may take place having deleterious and as well misinforming influence upon
these trials. Objectively, the premise of preventing future law suits and
clinical effectiveness based upon that which is believed by a small group
garnering favor of placebo affection and spontaneous "remissive miracles".
As sound as my general declaration of law suits and clinical effectiveness as
well to bar data which causes a drug to go to testing stages without having
positive data in the information that the observing researchers gain from
human test subjects.
The protocols that I image and will map out for in a brief diagram and
that are complimentary to the statements above will yield much better results
so as not to waste time with phase III trials when data from phase II human
test subjects yielded was flawed and to expect results by psychological,
environmental, personal, dietary, undiagnosed and diagnosed medical factors
or untreated medical factors. The answer of the dynamic in clinical
environments is that of fatigue. As a foremost example of what fails most in
clinical trials that produces situations that engender negative results is the
human factor. As well the screening techniques will keep unconscious
sabotage by staff and outsiders from resulting in failure to achieve real and
clear perception of the results achieved in all phases of human test
oncological trials and applied in any clinical environment will yield
measurable results guaranteed merely by the researchers requesting a
solution to Innocentive Challenge number 7906523.
Detectives, professional interrogators from military careers now out of
work, body languge experts, some therapists and also business professionals
study human conditions completely and as thorougly as information at hand
can provide. By taking cues from a development team of all of the above
professions and using materials found on the internet and by the internet in
book form and others, results will be achieved.
By instating series of checks and using normal clinical profiling and
behavioral protocols these persons will be able to create a safer environment
for the patients not only in those monitoring oncological trials in a drug
sense, but also safe from eachother, staff, doctors, nurses and other
researches and as well "draw away the fog" that is seen very easily when
medical misdiagnosis is approached or when a patient fails to communicate
data requested, whether it is because of chemotherapeutic or other drug
reactions, age-associated illness such as alzheimers, fear of death and
sickness colluding emotional and psychological response in projection and
lending to anger and for a patient or patients to sabotage information
because they're dying or angry and as well prevents patients from
miscommunicating responses to questions and clarifying responses and
directed or undirected declarations to researchers, staff, nurses and doctors.
Use of material by Milton Erickson, John Lieberman, Alan Pease and
others providing a scope of information on timelines and eye movement
patterns, lying and deception, tonality and expression in verbal and written
communications, fear and confrontation and lastly, kinesics and haptics more
commonly described as body languages.
In any professional environment dealing with death persons may have
psychological divergence from persons and analysis of every person in there
by a theoretical staff member group typed as "Observer Expert type A" and
as well a second group (or more) typed as "Observer Expert type B" to
observe both the "Observer Expert type A" and as well correct and
rationalize, collecting data both that group and all persons there.
More staff will be needed but in ratio to the staff needed to achieve
similar results in achieving shorter oncological trials, the ration in theory is
minute in cost and opens a new job type thus providing more opportunities,
unique expression in clinical observation and results that will lend to
environments changing the whole of medecine if not checked and balanced
correctly. A trend developing might also "osmotically transfer" into other
fields, which would be a great incentive to actualize the use of this challenge
response to solve the problem of shorterning clinical oncological trials. A
displayed ideal statement such as those in this paragraph lend to the postivity
felt in this solution and exemplary illuminate exactly why it must be done.
Consulting experts and research by a research team by your own will
let you compile a statistically sound and positive plan, which will be
implemented by you, as experts with research done by you, as experts.
Daring to pursue interpretation of details, as putting "the big picture"
together or taking the idea of a paradigm where "microscopic human data" is
taken into account to prevent human error and much more is idealogically
sound when referring to the axiom as taken in maxim form in the third
paragraph of the hyppocratic oath which has so influenced medecine and
prevalently spread throughout cultures.

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my

ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."

[wikipedia entry : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath ]