5 ms·
Perhaps phase 3s aren't perfectly free of bias, but they are essentially impossible to effectively manipulate by the drugmaker. Even if we assume all the physi
by missedthecue 5y ago
Perhaps phase 3s aren't perfectly free of bias, but they are essentially impossible to effectively manipulate by the drugmaker.
Even if we assume all the physicians involved in the trial are willing to be bribed, the pharma company doesn't know which ones are handing out placebos.
- ekianjo 5y ago> Perhaps phase 3s aren't perfectly free of bias, but they are essentially impossible to effectively manipulate by the drugmaker. Not completely accurate. Studies with negative outcomes are not required to be published by the drug maker. You can virtually keep trying the same drug and "get lucky" with a single trial, and just register that one with the authorities since the standards for replication are still very low.
- kuhewa 5y agoNo because you have to preregister all of them.
- ekianjo 5y agoPreregistering does not mean anything about sharing actual results. the large majority of negative outcomes are NEVER published. Please don't spread misinformation.
- kuhewa 5y agoPretty sure FDAAA has mandated reporting results for a while now (although some sponsors choose to break the law). Do you have an example of your scenario of an approved drug with many phase 3 trials pre-registered but only one with reported results?
- forcry 5y ago> pharma company doesn't know which ones are handing out placebos.. Not sure I get you. If all the physicians are bribed, then why would the company need to know anything? Everyone can cook up some data and go along with the result that the company needs, right? Also, about this >If all the physicians are bribed I think you should assume that any physician that ends up in a trial is there because they are known to be complaisant. Same as politicians and authority figures are often planted by powerful people with vested interests.