> It's only a "great way to create statistical fraud" if you assume that the statisticians, and the FDA, are either stupid or corrupt. This is a legitimate iss

> It's only a "great way to create statistical fraud" if you assume that the statisticians, and the FDA, are either stupid or corrupt. This is a legitimate issue in the scientific community. The FDA made it a requirement to publish drug trial criteria beforehand to prevent trials from stopping prematurely or adding more participants. This resulted in a massive drop in drugs with positive results: "...before the registry was created, more than half of the published studies of heart disease showed positive results. After the registry was created, only 8 percent had positive results". [0] The FDA and scientific community isn't as "pure" as your flippant dismissal would suggest. The FDA can only do so much, and trial runners have misaligned incentives. [0] https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=463237871 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...