3 ms·

ah, Begley, such a saint: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a... Th

by apathy 10y ago

ah, Begley, such a saint: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a... This is the guy that published the irreproducible results paper whose results were (of course) irreproducible (since it did not name any). I.e., "trust me on this", the opposite of science. Note above that you can pay for more of his sage wisdom, thanks to the generous NatureMacSpringer megaconglomco. Post everything as a preprint. Submit your trial results to OpenTrials or OpenFDA. Quit killing patients. Maybe work in pediatrics so that, right or wrong, you still won't make any money, so you might as well not kill any excess kids. I'm not bitter or anything, after participating in clinical trials and analysis for over a decade...

nonbel 10y ago
>"I'm not bitter or anything, after participating in clinical trials and analysis for over a decade..." I'd love to hear your story, up to you.
- apathy 10y ago
  To be honest it's really only adult trials that are fucked. Well, those and rare diseases with a noisy yet ignorant "advocacy" lobby ("We won't have to pay if the drug doesn't work, the magical Insurance Fairy will pay for it!"). I understand the latter (some hope is better than none, if it's your kid that's sick) but as for the former... ick. Take away the profit motive and it's astounding how much more reliable the trials get. Of course reviewers whine about how they're often equivocal or negative, because the thought of the literature being horribly biased either a) has never crossed their mind (too busy with protocols), or b) is precisely what they want, for "showing progress". So in order to keep up the appearance of positive results and keep the gravy train flowing, the trials that get published tend to be the ones that "show" "progress". Mind you, these are clinical trials with preregistered endpoints and protocols. Pretty much the entirety of experimental science outside of physics is much worse. So what I'm telling you is that this is the BEST-CASE SCENARIO for an awful lot of science. I'm not going to write up "my story" beyond this, because it's the same as most everyone else's story in the field. Killing humans for profit is not my idea of a good time, even if adult trials tend to pay better than the Army. YMMV. I may be jaded, but I still believe there are populations that, through no fault of their own, end up with few or no options. There is room in this world for integrity -- but get (real) money involved and the bad money drives out the good. The linked paper is dead on.
  - nonbel 10y ago
    Thanks.

by apathy 10y ago

nonbel 10y ago

>"I'm not bitter or anything, after participating in clinical trials and analysis for over a decade..." I'd love to hear your story, up to you.

apathy 10y ago
To be honest it's really only adult trials that are fucked. Well, those and rare diseases with a noisy yet ignorant "advocacy" lobby ("We won't have to pay if the drug doesn't work, the magical Insurance Fairy will pay for it!"). I understand the latter (some hope is better than none, if it's your kid that's sick) but as for the former... ick. Take away the profit motive and it's astounding how much more reliable the trials get. Of course reviewers whine about how they're often equivocal or negative, because the thought of the literature being horribly biased either a) has never crossed their mind (too busy with protocols), or b) is precisely what they want, for "showing progress". So in order to keep up the appearance of positive results and keep the gravy train flowing, the trials that get published tend to be the ones that "show" "progress". Mind you, these are clinical trials with preregistered endpoints and protocols. Pretty much the entirety of experimental science outside of physics is much worse. So what I'm telling you is that this is the BEST-CASE SCENARIO for an awful lot of science. I'm not going to write up "my story" beyond this, because it's the same as most everyone else's story in the field. Killing humans for profit is not my idea of a good time, even if adult trials tend to pay better than the Army. YMMV. I may be jaded, but I still believe there are populations that, through no fault of their own, end up with few or no options. There is room in this world for integrity -- but get (real) money involved and the bad money drives out the good. The linked paper is dead on.
- nonbel 10y ago
  Thanks.