3 ms·

> We're not just banging rocks together here, guys, we know how to do clinical trials. There are many problems with clinical trials. Read Ben Goldacre for exa

by DanBC2 14y ago

> We're not just banging rocks together here, guys, we know how to do clinical trials. There are many problems with clinical trials. Read Ben Goldacre for examples. One problem is that good results are published, while bad results (when they're submitted, which isn't often) are too boring for publication. And then there are all the other problems of studies that aren't correctly blinded, or the selection is faulty, or etc. These are all reputable pharma companies with substantial funds to run tests. I am, obviously, addressing your comment because there's not nearly enough detail in the article to discuss.

refurb 14y ago
Often bad clinical trial results aren't released because they are bad for reasons other than the drug doesn't work. Also, it's very rare for big pharma companies to screw up a clinical trial. It's much more common in the small biotechs and non-profits. If there is one thing that big pharma companies are good at is drug development (not so much drug research).
- DanBC2 14y ago
  So a big pharma company like Merck wouldn't use a big publishing company like Elsevier to create fake "medical" journals and publish research? https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=elseviers+fake+journal+merck https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=elseviers+fake+journa...
  - streptomycin 14y ago
    What does that have to do with clinical trials? You're not being logically coherent. The FDA isn't going to approve a drug because someone makes a fake journal and publishes some results in it.
wisty 14y ago
> There are many problems with clinical trials. Read Ben Goldacre for examples Yes, and the statisticians in the FDA and the drug companies have a lot of experience in this. I think they started looking at ways to end trials early back in the ADT (anti-HIV drug) days. It was partly due to popular pressure - people with AIDS didn't want to wait for the clinical trials. Lots of big angry protests. And the cat and mouse game between regulators and big pharma cooking the books is also pretty mature. There's problems with the system, but bad statistics is one of the smaller ones. The real problem is marginally effective drugs being used instead of better patent-expired ones, because the less effective (but not truly bad - they beat placebo) ones have bigger marketing budgets.

by DanBC2 14y ago

refurb 14y ago

Often bad clinical trial results aren't released because they are bad for reasons other than the drug doesn't work. Also, it's very rare for big pharma companies to screw up a clinical trial. It's much more common in the small biotechs and non-profits. If there is one thing that big pharma companies are good at is drug development (not so much drug research).

DanBC2 14y ago
So a big pharma company like Merck wouldn't use a big publishing company like Elsevier to create fake "medical" journals and publish research? https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=elseviers+fake+journal+merck https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=elseviers+fake+journa...
- streptomycin 14y ago
  What does that have to do with clinical trials? You're not being logically coherent. The FDA isn't going to approve a drug because someone makes a fake journal and publishes some results in it.

wisty 14y ago

> There are many problems with clinical trials. Read Ben Goldacre for examples Yes, and the statisticians in the FDA and the drug companies have a lot of experience in this. I think they started looking at ways to end trials early back in the ADT (anti-HIV drug) days. It was partly due to popular pressure - people with AIDS didn't want to wait for the clinical trials. Lots of big angry protests. And the cat and mouse game between regulators and big pharma cooking the books is also pretty mature. There's problems with the system, but bad statistics is one of the smaller ones. The real problem is marginally effective drugs being used instead of better patent-expired ones, because the less effective (but not truly bad - they beat placebo) ones have bigger marketing budgets.