4 ms·

so the conclusion from that is that there is a concerted effort by drug companies to unscrupulously modified the outcomes of their studies Did we read the same

so the conclusion from that is that there is a concerted effort by drug companies to unscrupulously modified the outcomes of their studies Did we read the same blog post? The author didn't claim any such thing. In fact, he referenced a study where (if you ascribe intent) it sounds like the drug company was undermining itself by using a placebo that worked better than the drug (the olive oil). His actual conclusion, for non-readers, is: Placebos aren't documented, and they're not included in studies, and many times they're active in causing side effects deliberately and yet they're barely regulated -- "current anarchy" -- and this casts doubt on the validity of studies. His call to action sounds pretty reasonable to me: > FDA needs to review its policies on placebos and either outlaw "active placebos" or rigorously define acceptable conditions for their use.

peeters 14y ago
>> so the conclusion from that is that there is a concerted effort by drug companies to unscrupulously modified the outcomes of their studies > The author didn't claim any such thing. Actually, the author did claim any such thing: > Active placebos are designed to mimic the side-effects of drugs under study. So for example, if a new drug is known (or thought by the drug company) to produce dry mouth, the drug company might use a placebo containing ingredients that produce dry-mouth. That way, of course, they can say things in their ads like "[drug name] has a low occurrence of side effects, such as dry mouth, which occurred about as often as they did with placebo." The author here is accusing drug companies of using active placebos to make the side effects seem less critical, when there's no evidence of that presented.
- theon144 14y ago
  >might use I feel like the author just provided an example how the drug companies could be exploiting the fact that they do not have to disclose the information about the placebo, not necessarily accusing them of it - I know I wouldn't think of this immediately (especially sleepy me right now). It is, I agree, unnecessarily alarmist, but the conclusion is true regardless of whether the drug companies are doing that.
Goronmon 14y ago
I'd argue these are the main points of his blog posts. Or at least the ones he emphasized. Active placebos are designed to mimic the side-effects of drugs under study. So for example, if a new drug is known (or thought by the drug company) to produce dry mouth, the drug company might use a placebo containing ingredients that produce dry-mouth. That way, of course, they can say things in their ads like "[drug name] has a low occurrence of side effects, such as dry mouth, which occurred about as often as they did with placebo." and The current anarchy that prevails with regard to placebos calls into question the reliability not just of drug-company research but of virtually every placebo-controlled study ever done. Which is a hell of a thing to have to say, or even think about. In fact it's nauseating. Sounds to me like he's saying drug companies are manipulating the outcomes of studies and implying that any study containing a placebo shouldn't be trusted.

peeters 14y ago

>> so the conclusion from that is that there is a concerted effort by drug companies to unscrupulously modified the outcomes of their studies > The author didn't claim any such thing. Actually, the author did claim any such thing: > Active placebos are designed to mimic the side-effects of drugs under study. So for example, if a new drug is known (or thought by the drug company) to produce dry mouth, the drug company might use a placebo containing ingredients that produce dry-mouth. That way, of course, they can say things in their ads like "[drug name] has a low occurrence of side effects, such as dry mouth, which occurred about as often as they did with placebo." The author here is accusing drug companies of using active placebos to make the side effects seem less critical, when there's no evidence of that presented.

theon144 14y ago
>might use I feel like the author just provided an example how the drug companies could be exploiting the fact that they do not have to disclose the information about the placebo, not necessarily accusing them of it - I know I wouldn't think of this immediately (especially sleepy me right now). It is, I agree, unnecessarily alarmist, but the conclusion is true regardless of whether the drug companies are doing that.

Goronmon 14y ago

I'd argue these are the main points of his blog posts. Or at least the ones he emphasized. Active placebos are designed to mimic the side-effects of drugs under study. So for example, if a new drug is known (or thought by the drug company) to produce dry mouth, the drug company might use a placebo containing ingredients that produce dry-mouth. That way, of course, they can say things in their ads like "[drug name] has a low occurrence of side effects, such as dry mouth, which occurred about as often as they did with placebo." and The current anarchy that prevails with regard to placebos calls into question the reliability not just of drug-company research but of virtually every placebo-controlled study ever done. Which is a hell of a thing to have to say, or even think about. In fact it's nauseating. Sounds to me like he's saying drug companies are manipulating the outcomes of studies and implying that any study containing a placebo shouldn't be trusted.