4 ms·

Would love to see independent research, not the company presenting their own. It’s insane to me that we let people with massive financial incentives run their

Would love to see independent research, not the company presenting their own. It’s insane to me that we let people with massive financial incentives run their own trials.

dbdmxjxnx 3y ago
Who'd pay to run a trial if they didn't have an interest in the outcome? A company running their own trial doesn't preclude other trials later on. Would you feel better if the African Union nations bucked up for a trial? Because they have a massive financial incentive too, though it's based on efficacy rather than sales.
- lettergram 3y ago
  Imo most trials should have two parts (1) do a blind bid so competitors can conduct trial (2) fund trial yourself as well. Hide names of both people conducting trial. Keep results hidden and send both results to FDA for review. Publish both results after review. Only attach names of entities who conducted the trial at the end. This enables for a full replication and evaluation without anyone knowing who did anything. And at the very least reduces risk of corruption.
  - natechols 3y ago
    Do you have a more recent example than Vioxx in mind where your approach might have made enough of a difference to be worth the longer review process?
  - billythemaniam 3y ago
    Drug trials are already double-blind and highly regulated, particularly stage 3, so further controlling for the corruption you are suggesting doesn't seem necessary. If there is evidence (hard evidence not hearsay or conspiracy theories) of that sort of corruption, then I think what you suggest is a good improvement.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      When lots of money is on the line, all kinds of people involved find ways to subvert the blinding process.
      - billythemaniam 3y ago
        Without hard evidence, that's a great example of a conspiracy theory.
Ensorceled 3y ago
> It’s insane to me that we let people with massive financial incentives run their own trials. The alternative is for some other organization to be on the hook for the HUGE costs a large scale trial. And then the incentives to not run useless expensive trials goes away.
- anoxor 3y ago
  Consider your argument and opioids, where nearly 1000 people a week overdosed on at the peak? Also consider "a scientist is as easy to buy as a politician". Cigarette were considered to not cause cancer backed by science. On top of that, the replication crisis in even chemistry and physics is seeing 30% of results can't be replicated. The system is far more busted than people think.
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    To add to your point, this erodes trust in science too. Public perception of complex topics is very, very important. People effectively have to "trust" science. When it's corrupted there are ripples of distrust sown through the populace. Vaccine deniers, climate deniers, etcetc - distrust is just one of the fuels that fan these flames.
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      The people sowing distrust ARE the vaccine deniers and climate deniers. People comparing vaccine trials to cigarettes, like the person you are agreeing with here, ARE the problem; they were not created by "corporate funded vaccine trials".
      - anoxor 3y ago
        I have a Ph.D. in a hard science, so I guess I'm not totally unaware of how science works. Let's say, I have lived experience as to why 30% of physics and chemistry research can't be replicated. Putting 100% faith and trust in a "corporate funded vaccine trials" is something I would suggest against given the potential monetary gains from those conducting it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
refurb 3y ago
They don't run their own trial. Hundreds of doctors and clinics sign up to run trials on the companies behalf.

Would love to see independent research, not the company presenting their own. It’s insane to me that we let people with massive financial incentives run their own trials.

dbdmxjxnx 3y ago

Who'd pay to run a trial if they didn't have an interest in the outcome? A company running their own trial doesn't preclude other trials later on. Would you feel better if the African Union nations bucked up for a trial? Because they have a massive financial incentive too, though it's based on efficacy rather than sales.

lettergram 3y ago
Imo most trials should have two parts (1) do a blind bid so competitors can conduct trial (2) fund trial yourself as well. Hide names of both people conducting trial. Keep results hidden and send both results to FDA for review. Publish both results after review. Only attach names of entities who conducted the trial at the end. This enables for a full replication and evaluation without anyone knowing who did anything. And at the very least reduces risk of corruption.
- natechols 3y ago
  Do you have a more recent example than Vioxx in mind where your approach might have made enough of a difference to be worth the longer review process?
- billythemaniam 3y ago
  Drug trials are already double-blind and highly regulated, particularly stage 3, so further controlling for the corruption you are suggesting doesn't seem necessary. If there is evidence (hard evidence not hearsay or conspiracy theories) of that sort of corruption, then I think what you suggest is a good improvement.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    When lots of money is on the line, all kinds of people involved find ways to subvert the blinding process.
    - billythemaniam 3y ago
      Without hard evidence, that's a great example of a conspiracy theory.

Ensorceled 3y ago

> It’s insane to me that we let people with massive financial incentives run their own trials. The alternative is for some other organization to be on the hook for the HUGE costs a large scale trial. And then the incentives to not run useless expensive trials goes away.

anoxor 3y ago
Consider your argument and opioids, where nearly 1000 people a week overdosed on at the peak? Also consider "a scientist is as easy to buy as a politician". Cigarette were considered to not cause cancer backed by science. On top of that, the replication crisis in even chemistry and physics is seeing 30% of results can't be replicated. The system is far more busted than people think.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  To add to your point, this erodes trust in science too. Public perception of complex topics is very, very important. People effectively have to "trust" science. When it's corrupted there are ripples of distrust sown through the populace. Vaccine deniers, climate deniers, etcetc - distrust is just one of the fuels that fan these flames.
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    The people sowing distrust ARE the vaccine deniers and climate deniers. People comparing vaccine trials to cigarettes, like the person you are agreeing with here, ARE the problem; they were not created by "corporate funded vaccine trials".
    - anoxor 3y ago
      I have a Ph.D. in a hard science, so I guess I'm not totally unaware of how science works. Let's say, I have lived experience as to why 30% of physics and chemistry research can't be replicated. Putting 100% faith and trust in a "corporate funded vaccine trials" is something I would suggest against given the potential monetary gains from those conducting it.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

refurb 3y ago

They don't run their own trial. Hundreds of doctors and clinics sign up to run trials on the companies behalf.