3 ms·
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 f
by 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 agoImo 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 agoDo 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 agoDrug 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 agoWhen lots of money is on the line, all kinds of people involved find ways to subvert the blinding process.
- billythemaniam 3y agoWithout hard evidence, that's a great example of a conspiracy theory.