Derek Lowe is always the high-quality skeptic on all things pharma, and that’s a valuable role. Still, I feel like this isn’t really engaging with the issues:https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/01/why-are-clinical-trials-so-complicated …
-
Show this thread
-
“Clinical trial regulations are completely unnecessary & don’t improve the quality of research at all” is a strawman. There might be some that are absurd, but in general, these rules are made by smart people, for actual reasons.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Yes, CGMP rules ensure pure & stable drug samples. Yes, rigorous study designs make study results more credible. The question is: how much more credible, relative to the cost?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Part of the problem is, once you have an FDA, it becomes *trusted*. Lots of doctors will immediately go out and prescribe any drug that’s FDA approved. People expect “approved” to mean “I can trust it.”
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
As long as that’s true, the case for high standards is a lot more sympathetic. Crappy studies are, indeed, crappy, and rarely worth betting a patient’s health on.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
But take a different extreme, for perspective. It’s totally legal to write a blog post saying “this drug worked for me!” The fact that this is legal tells you *nothing* about how much credence to put in the post. Free speech doesn’t come with a quality guarantee.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Maybe I’m misunderstanding this tweet but free speech does come with a quality guarantee when you’re selling something. Like you’re not (and shouldn’t be) allowed to lie about the ingredients on food packaging, etc
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Good point, there’s nuance there
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.