lederhosen (
lederhosen) wrote2006-04-06 02:09 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
A slight misunderstanding
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.
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.
no subject
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.
.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
.
no subject