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 -
I could imagine a world where lower-quality trials were so useless that nobody intelligent believed them. In that case, legalizing them would be morally correct according to me, but a loss from a societal benefit perspective.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Fortunately we have a great natural experiment right now! COVID19 drug & vaccine development is moving at much faster than usual speeds and skipping a lot of typical precautionary steps.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
If this “works” for generating drugs or vaccines that actually work, faster or cheaper than average, then we’ll know that there can be value in streamlining these processes.
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
How do you view hydroxychloriquine through this lens? Crummy trial spurred better trials but also led to many hospitals including it in their algorithms and many patients taking it who (seemingly) didn’t benefit. It also consumed a lot of research and clinical testing effort.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I would need to get a sense of the cost of doing one good trial vs many bad trials.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Accounting for costs could be difficult in the context of COVID. Time wasted may be more costly than actual trial expense.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.