4 ms·

By your argument, all control groups for testing treatments for anything debilitating is unethical. The answer to that is that medical ethics generally work on

by ktizo 14y ago

By your argument, all control groups for testing treatments for anything debilitating is unethical. The answer to that is that medical ethics generally work on a basis of least harm, so if you have informed volunteers who might have negative effects from a given trial, this is deemed to be balanced out by the general benefit that rigorous drug trials can bring to the wider population. As far as the issue with some anti-depressives and suicide, the main issue was that drug trials showing this had in some cases been systematically downplayed and in some cases suppressed outright by the companies seeking to profit from these drugs. So the problem there was not with the procedure of medical trials, but rather with the corruption of the procedure of medical trials, for profit.

lutusp 14y ago
> By your argument, all control groups for testing treatments for anything debilitating is unethical. 1. Never said it. 2. It's unethical unless one acquires informed consent from adults. Many of the adults in these studies don't understand enough to give informed consent, and many of the studies involve children. > So the problem there was not with the procedure of medical trials, but rather with the corruption of the procedure of medical trials, for profit. And that's the contextual background for any clinical study of antidepressants. Most adults think antidepressants work, but studies show that they don't work: "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration": http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050045 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... A quote: "Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance." A situation ripe for exploitation.
- ktizo 14y ago
  You didn't use those exact words, but it would seem the logical extension of your argument. And to claim that any clinical study of antidepressants is corrupted for profit would seem to ignore the fact that the evidence you are using about anti-depressants not working comes from clinical studies. You can't have it both ways.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > You didn't use those exact words, but it would seem the logical extension of your argument. It's essential in a discussion like this to quote the other person directly, word for word, as I have just done. > And to claim that any clinical study of antidepressants is corrupted for profit ... Circle where I ever said this anywhere. Want to have an imaginary debate? Make stuff up. > would seem to ignore the fact that the evidence you are using about anti-depressants not working comes from clinical studies. You're confused. Comparing industry-funded studies, in particular when only those with positive outcomes were even published, to a meta-analysis by non-industry sources that gather and analyze all studies, published and unpublished, is to compare apples and oranges.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      No it isn't essential. For the second, you said it was the contextual background of any clinical study, before then going on to compare clinical studies which you are now saying shouldn't be compared.

by ktizo 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> By your argument, all control groups for testing treatments for anything debilitating is unethical. 1. Never said it. 2. It's unethical unless one acquires informed consent from adults. Many of the adults in these studies don't understand enough to give informed consent, and many of the studies involve children. > So the problem there was not with the procedure of medical trials, but rather with the corruption of the procedure of medical trials, for profit. And that's the contextual background for any clinical study of antidepressants. Most adults think antidepressants work, but studies show that they don't work: "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration": http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050045 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj... A quote: "Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance." A situation ripe for exploitation.

ktizo 14y ago
You didn't use those exact words, but it would seem the logical extension of your argument. And to claim that any clinical study of antidepressants is corrupted for profit would seem to ignore the fact that the evidence you are using about anti-depressants not working comes from clinical studies. You can't have it both ways.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > You didn't use those exact words, but it would seem the logical extension of your argument. It's essential in a discussion like this to quote the other person directly, word for word, as I have just done. > And to claim that any clinical study of antidepressants is corrupted for profit ... Circle where I ever said this anywhere. Want to have an imaginary debate? Make stuff up. > would seem to ignore the fact that the evidence you are using about anti-depressants not working comes from clinical studies. You're confused. Comparing industry-funded studies, in particular when only those with positive outcomes were even published, to a meta-analysis by non-industry sources that gather and analyze all studies, published and unpublished, is to compare apples and oranges.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    No it isn't essential. For the second, you said it was the contextual background of any clinical study, before then going on to compare clinical studies which you are now saying shouldn't be compared.