With my cynical hat on, this is exactly how you’d want things to be set up if you were a pharma exec championing one of the drug candidates in your pipeline.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Low standards for what counts as “good enough data to pursue further” (so you can be sure your favorite candidate will clear it) but overly high standards for how large a clinical trial has to be (so smaller competitors can’t afford to run them.)
Show this thread -
I don’t know enough about life inside a top pharma company to actually claim anybody thinks this way, of course. It’s a product of a cynical imagination.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'd be personally more interested in n=1 longitudinal studies with massive effect sizes and everything documented, rather than the current meta meta data mining bullshit
-
I always perk my ears up about extreme human case studies. They can be hoaxes of course, but they can also illuminate whole fields of study (think of H.M. and memory.)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also p-values can readily be misleading as they don’t inherently measure effect size and over-focus on reproducibility between cohorts or measurements
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.