> Once again we see that randomized, double-blinded clinical trials can be more deadly and less informative than ad-hoc studies performed on the battlefield of

> Once again we see that randomized, double-blinded clinical trials can be more deadly and less informative than ad-hoc studies performed on the battlefield of medicine. Can you elaborate? I've always heard that it's unethetical to use unproven treatments and that the scientific method (rndm double-blind) was necessary to remove as much bias as possible. Now such strict requirements obviously don't jam well with fighting on the front line of medicine. I'm very interested to learn what "less deadly and more informative" ad hoc studies are in this context. (genuine, there is no irony in this comment, this is not my domain)