4 ms·
This popular science piece is characteristic of a prevalent and hostile view of the growing practice of patient-funded clinical trials. In this model the patien
by reasonattlm 10y ago
This popular science piece is characteristic of a prevalent and hostile view of the growing practice of patient-funded clinical trials. In this model the patient pays a sizable portion of the costs, which certainly makes it a lot easier to gather larger amounts of data, as the trial organizers don't have to seek the funding themselves. On the other hand, it tends to rule out the ability to carry out a blind trial in which not everyone actually gets the treatment, as well as other similar refinements. That is a problem if the goal is to search for and quantify marginal effects, but if the point is to discover or rule out large effects, I'd argue that control groups are not necessary. The control in that case is the established progression for patients who do not get the treatment, or who undergo existing, marginal treatments. We are at the stage in the development of medicine to treat aging in which marginal effects, such as those resulting from the use of metformin as a calorie restriction mimetic, should be discarded as uninteresting. Once at the stage of trying things in human studies, the research community should be filtering for significant effects, such as those obtained by clearance of senescent cells. Given the poor state of funding for aging research in general, methods that can pull in more resources to obtain more data should be applauded.
In the case of the approach being trialed here by Ambrosia, I think our expectations should be low, and the outcome I expect is for there to be no significant benefit. The only ethical question worthy of consideration is whether those involved then do the right thing: publish the data, shut up shop, and move on to the next project - having done the good work of finding out that there is no large effect here. Transfusions of young blood to old individuals are not producing benefits in mice, and there is reason to think that the beneficial outcomes observed in old mice due to parabiosis, the linking of circulatory systems between an old and a young individual, are due to factors or circumstances not replicated by periodic transfusion. It isn't difficult to imagine that beneficial outcomes require the youthful system reacting in a dynamic way to the presence of aged signals, for example, or - as suggested by some researchers recently - that it is nothing more than a consistently maintained dilution of problem signals in the aged environment.
- sirclueless 10y agoI wonder if you could run a paid study with a proper control group. Perhaps have everyone pay to participate, administer the treatment to half of them, and at the end of the study refund some amount of money (all? all + interest?) to the ones who received a placebo. That way they've only donated their time.
- Fomite 10y agoThe prevalent and hostile view exists because this is a pretty dubious study design, and there's a ridiculous degree of financial entanglement in many of these "trials". Lots of bad data doesn't necessarily help anyone. If the problem really is "This area doesn't have enough money", then the same money being used to buy into the trial could have funded a proper double-blind trial. And this is from the perspective of someone who does support the use of non-randomized evidence in medicine.
- RichardHeart 10y agoreasonattlm, you're the man. I think lots of your good posts go unread because the paragraphs are too long. If you hit enter one more time than usual per paragraph, I think you'll 4x or better the posts read/understood.