3 ms·
I take the sentence to mean "If there are no rigorous controls in place on active placebos, they should be outlawed" which doesn't sound unreasonable.
by koide 14y ago
I take the sentence to mean "If there are no rigorous controls in place on active placebos, they should be outlawed" which doesn't sound unreasonable.
- tptacek 14y agoIt's totally unreasonable; it would be saying "because we don't trust the FDA, we should unblind drug trials".
- derefr 14y agoPeople threaten people with things that they themselves would find horrible, in order to incentivize the other party, all the time. The US budget sequestration, for example: a bunch of spending cuts none of us wanted, created with the intention of making us pick spending cuts we did want instead so that it wouldn't happen. The idea behind this statement is similar: if the FDA actually pre-commits to a policy saying "either we're going to figure out a huge set of requirements for publishing placebo composition data [huge hassle for us, honestly] or, if we haven't done that by January 2015, no more active placebos"--well, suddenly the drug companies are breathing down the FDA's neck to get those requirements drafted so they can comply with them before it's too late.