3 ms·
You do realize that, yes, "most [doctors] are not trained in doing controlled trials" because they have another job, the job of being a doctor? Running large RC
by kaitai 7y ago
You do realize that, yes, "most [doctors] are not trained in doing controlled trials" because they have another job, the job of being a doctor? Running large RCTs takes time and a different sort of education.
Source: married to a physician who usually has a 1,200 patient panel, with a diversity of conditions; said physician spouse was at one point recruited to run an RCT for a drug company and did a lot of work to prepare and then pulled out because spouse figured out they'd not be allowed the latitude to improve the study design, and felt that the study design was slanted inappropriately to supporting the efficacy of the drug (it was not being compared to standard of care but instead to a demonstrably inferior treatment, a previous standard of care).
Yeah, objectivity and politics don't mix. There are people who do RCTs and do them well, and they're not just random doctors kind of scattering drugs among their patient panel.
- phkahler 7y ago>> You do realize that, yes, "most [doctors] are not trained in doing controlled trials" because they have another job... Absolutely. It wasn't a criticism, just the way things are. For example, one doctor is claiming HCQ + zinc + antibiotic has treated over 700 covid-19 patients without a single death. I think it would be appropriate for someone to audit his records to see if that's true (was it even covid? or just some cold going around in his area?). If another doctor wanted to replicate his alleged success, I could easily see them using a slightly different protocol (skipping the zinc, using a different antibiotic, changing when or how much to administer, etc) and then claiming he's wrong when it doesn't work for them. That's just how a lot of people behave unless they've been trained otherwise.