5 ms·

Let me guess, the funding for this research originated from a pharma company? I notice, despite all the optimism in the press, that the human race hasn't "cured

Let me guess, the funding for this research originated from a pharma company? I notice, despite all the optimism in the press, that the human race hasn't "cured" a whole lot of medical conditions. It's easier, and more profitable, to fund a bunch of trials until one of them shows a statistically significant improvement, and then find a way to categorize as large as possible a portion of the population to fit into the affected category and "treat" them. "Well sir, You don't have diabetes, but you do have pre-diabetes, and we need you to start taking these $20 tablets immediately" or "ms smith, your child's restlessness is a sign of OCD, we can't cure it, but we can treat it with these $300 amphetamine pills"

Xcelerate 12y ago
> shows a statistically significant improvement If a medication consistently shows a statistically significant improvement, then what exactly is wrong with using it to improve someone's life? Perhaps I'm missing something in your post...
- beagle3 12y ago
  > I'm missing something in your post... You added the word "consistently". However, once you got something approved, it is assumed beneficially working and rarely evaluated again until there's a lawsuit for the side effects (e.g. VioXX) or patents expire. Consistently showing improvement is not actually a requirement.
- charlesism 12y ago
  If you run enough trials, and scuttle the ones you don't like, you are likely to get a result, eventually, that shows a statistically significant improvement (albeit due to error). Which wouldn't be so bad if drugs cost nothing, had no side effects, and physicians were aware of exactly how much of an improvement the medication is alleged to have (a tiny improvement of some malady may not be worth the hassle and cost for some patients). Having said that, I'm not an expert on medicine here, I'm just someone who read this interesting book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma
gwern 12y ago
> Let me guess, the funding for this research originated from a pharma company? The declared funding source was > This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (grant R21 MH077234 and R01 MH059708) and by grants from the Davee Foundation.
- charlesism 12y ago
  It's not a smoking gun, but the phrase "secretary of Biochem" doesn't allay my suspicions: "Mr. Davee was a business executive for companies that developed medical products. He was chairman of Surgitek and DS Medical and secretary of Biochem International Inc. The companies' primary products are vital-sign monitors." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-08-16/news/9808160185_1_vital-sign-monitors-medical-school-field-museum http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-08-16/news/980816018...

Xcelerate 12y ago

> shows a statistically significant improvement If a medication consistently shows a statistically significant improvement, then what exactly is wrong with using it to improve someone's life? Perhaps I'm missing something in your post...

beagle3 12y ago
> I'm missing something in your post... You added the word "consistently". However, once you got something approved, it is assumed beneficially working and rarely evaluated again until there's a lawsuit for the side effects (e.g. VioXX) or patents expire. Consistently showing improvement is not actually a requirement.
charlesism 12y ago
If you run enough trials, and scuttle the ones you don't like, you are likely to get a result, eventually, that shows a statistically significant improvement (albeit due to error). Which wouldn't be so bad if drugs cost nothing, had no side effects, and physicians were aware of exactly how much of an improvement the medication is alleged to have (a tiny improvement of some malady may not be worth the hassle and cost for some patients). Having said that, I'm not an expert on medicine here, I'm just someone who read this interesting book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma

gwern 12y ago

> Let me guess, the funding for this research originated from a pharma company? The declared funding source was > This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (grant R21 MH077234 and R01 MH059708) and by grants from the Davee Foundation.

charlesism 12y ago
It's not a smoking gun, but the phrase "secretary of Biochem" doesn't allay my suspicions: "Mr. Davee was a business executive for companies that developed medical products. He was chairman of Surgitek and DS Medical and secretary of Biochem International Inc. The companies' primary products are vital-sign monitors." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-08-16/news/9808160185_1_vital-sign-monitors-medical-school-field-museum http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-08-16/news/980816018...