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

[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?