A slight misunderstanding

[lederhosen]

Via Mediawatch, transcript of '9 AM with David and Kim', discussing the recent UK drug trial disaster:

David Reyne: Some of these guys were given a placebo.

Dr. David Ritchie: Correct

David Reyne: I don’t really understand what a placebo is, but it seems to have, to have saved them! And wouldn’t it make sense that every time a trial like this takes place, that there’s a placebo on hand.

*sigh*

Exercise yesterday: 10km. Total 191km/115mi. Captured by Barrow-wights.

Comments

[cheshire-bitten.livejournal.com]

I saw that, it made me very sad.

[madcatapult.livejournal.com]

Hee.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

"I don’t really understand what a placebo is, but it seems to have, to have saved them!"

Thanks for the inspiration! I'm off to re-read the first book in the series, Harry Potter and the Placebo.

[insaint.livejournal.com]

I don’t really understand what a placebo is

And how!

*headdesk*

[yellowblacktrip.livejournal.com]

LOL.

Embarrassing.

[fluffy-cloud.livejournal.com]

I ought to offer to be his exclusive placebo supplier. I'll make a mint!

[tyggerjai.livejournal.com]

The look on Dr. Ritchie's face in that still is priceless.

Though "drug trial that went terribly wrong" is a somewhat dubious phrase. If the trial showed that the drug is dangerous and not suitable for public consumption, then surely it went terribly *right*, albeit with unfortunate consequences? Isn't this akin to the Feynman gripe about "the experiment was a failure because it didn't support our hypothesis", as opposed to "because it didn't adequately test our hypothesis"?

sol.
.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Well, certainly 'wrong' from the perspective of those who got the drug...

I agree that the whole point of testing is to identify risks. OTOH, there've been claims that this one was exacerbated by poor procedures - had the patients been dosed one by one over a longer period, rather than all at once, there'd presumably only have been one person harmed instead of six. But I don't know enough about how such things are run to say whether that's a practical safeguard to apply.

[tyggerjai.livejournal.com]

Ah. If it's poorly implemented, then yes, that's wrong.

I used to work for a clinical trials company. There's an illusion of independence, but so long as your data meets FDA (yes, FDA - the Australian legislation basically says "See FDA section 11", or whatever) requirements you're effectively working for Glaxo Smith Kline.

It was a very depressing experience.

You do simultaneous tests so you can say you tested it on 6 people and get the drug to market first. To be fair, you have to go through a hell of a lot of trials before you even start thinking about testing on humans, but no, heaven forbid anything increase your time to market ....

sol.
.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

And, yeah, it's easy for the rest of us to be wise after the fact. In the real world, scheduling eight patients for eight different days isn't necessarily trivial. I can speculate about whether it was conducted with adequate care, but in the end I'm not in a position to make that judgement with certainty.

[notasquirrel.livejournal.com]

i wante a plaseeboe!! *jumps up and down* i wante a PLASEEBOE!!

[wingedkami.livejournal.com]

*cries*

I've just been reading things written by creationists. My brain was already hurting.

[chaos-crafter.livejournal.com]

I rather like that.
I mean it's an honest attempt to try to offer improvements to the process by someone who lacks a crucial piece of information.
Now admittedly it shows woeful lack of preparation for interviewing, but on the other hand, it probably also shows there will have been a lot of other people out there wondering the same thing who then got their question at least somewhat answered.

As for the tests, reading the reports to-date, it looks as though procedure was much as hundreds of other such tests are run, the amounts used were miniscule compared with amounts that led to no-effect results in animal tests. It looks to me like the only detail is the one already raised of sequential rather than parallel testing. Given that parallel testing is common we should not be attacking this test because it was the unlucky one, but rather all such tests that risk multiple lives by parallel testing of new substances in this way (oh and that fail to keep adequate supplies of placebo on hand :))

The question I've been wondering about - do participants in a test such as this also get a guarantee of on-going health support in the case of a catestrophic result or are these people stuck with their own medical bills for life (after all - voluntary procedure, so no health insurance)

[drzero.livejournal.com]

Personally, my question is, being a paladin, do I now attack the placebo?