3 ms·

> Schott also notes that the clinical trial didn’t include a control group of participants who got no guidance and made no lifestyle changes. This makes it hard

> Schott also notes that the clinical trial didn’t include a control group of participants who got no guidance and made no lifestyle changes. This makes it hard for researchers to pinpoint which aspect of the program might have been responsible for the positive effect. However, Heather M. Snyder, senior vice president for medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, tells the New York Times that the organization thought neglecting to offer an intervention to one group would be unethical. One might counter that it’s unethical to hinder our ability to understand which interventions are effective by prejudging the outcome in this way?

ekianjo 1y ago
> neglecting to offer an intervention to one group would be unethical. i read that as "doing Science would be unethical"
- dillydogg 1y ago
  Good luck ever doing a clinical trial with this approach. Think about cancer treatment. If we have an intervention we know is better than the natural course of the cancer, then we ought to compare the experimental treatment with the default treatment instead of letting people die from cancer in the name of "science".
- ocschwar 1y ago
  There are many contexts where doing an experiment with proper controls is literally a crime against humanity. Which means, yes, that there are many studies where the control isn't quite proper. And that does slow down progress in medical science.
ocschwar 1y ago
If you have access to statistics for the general population, you can forego the control group, I would think. But that requires doing the study in a country with a well run health care system and properly regulated medical records so that you can get these stats without privacy issues. (Glances in Denmark's general direction.. )
- drjasonharrison 1y ago
  You can also use Canada, with the exception of access to medical records, to minimize all of the differences between populations in the USA and the control group. Denmark has a very different vaccination schedule because they have exposure to many fewer "childhood diseases." Might seem like a small difference given the availability of 'properly regulate medical records without privacy issues" but these sorts of differences add up.

ekianjo 1y ago

> neglecting to offer an intervention to one group would be unethical. i read that as "doing Science would be unethical"

dillydogg 1y ago
Good luck ever doing a clinical trial with this approach. Think about cancer treatment. If we have an intervention we know is better than the natural course of the cancer, then we ought to compare the experimental treatment with the default treatment instead of letting people die from cancer in the name of "science".
ocschwar 1y ago
There are many contexts where doing an experiment with proper controls is literally a crime against humanity. Which means, yes, that there are many studies where the control isn't quite proper. And that does slow down progress in medical science.

ocschwar 1y ago

If you have access to statistics for the general population, you can forego the control group, I would think. But that requires doing the study in a country with a well run health care system and properly regulated medical records so that you can get these stats without privacy issues. (Glances in Denmark's general direction.. )

drjasonharrison 1y ago
You can also use Canada, with the exception of access to medical records, to minimize all of the differences between populations in the USA and the control group. Denmark has a very different vaccination schedule because they have exposure to many fewer "childhood diseases." Might seem like a small difference given the availability of 'properly regulate medical records without privacy issues" but these sorts of differences add up.