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.
-
Show this thread
-
It’s possible that if we allow more crappy studies *and amp up skepticism accordingly* there will be valuable signal amid the noise. Signal that we’re not allowed to generate today.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
I actually *agree* with
@Dereklowe that most attempts to make medicines that bypass the regulatory system are crap. And I appreciate his work in explaining to the public *why* they’re crap.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
The *ethical* position I take (which I know most people don’t agree with) is that you have a right & responsibility to decide for yourself what is crap. And if you want to take risks with your own health, that’s your business.
5 replies 3 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
The *empirical* hypothesis I’m making, which I *do* expect to be a question even skeptics should care about investigating, is that the “optimal” minimum standard for clinical trials is looser than the present standard.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
In other words, if there were a proliferation of sloppier trials, would the benefit of getting true positives sooner (& thus faster, cheaper drugs) outweigh the harms of people getting sick from ineffective or dangerous drugs that were reported as good?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Ok w ppl killing themselves w bad drugs. But: 1) don’t want to pay for it, 2) want a forcing function to make companies do the hard work of producing data (and we fully know what happens when no such forcing function exists - see device medicine, or worse, procedural medicine).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
It’s bad. See spinal surgery, joint surgery, ... . When, after decades, they run trial against sham it fails the sig majority of time. And, a little tangentially, note further that when you shut down such procedures death drops dramatically. Eg seehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127364/ …
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Yeah, one "bad" scenario is one in which there just isn't a financial incentive to actually test treatment effectiveness unless it's mandated by law.
-
-
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.