3 ms·

> shows a statistically significant improvement If a medication consistently shows a statistically significant improvement, then what exactly is wrong with us

• 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