h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Many would be familiar with the double blind trial where a selected group of patients with a disease are given either a new drug or a placebo to determine the effect of the drug (the double blind bit comes from neither the patient or the trial Dr. knowing who has the drug or the placebo).
I am suggesting
that this is expanded further given the number of drugs that are sold for their secondary effects (ie. Viagra was initially tested as a heart drug, an unusual side effect was noted!).
Given this a triple blind trial would involve the drug being tested on a range of diseases to determine its effectiveness compared with the placebo.
[link]
|
| |
How do you like my teats? |
|
| |
What sort of disease are we talking about here? I'm not sure doctors would be willing to toy with people's lives, although these pellets they keep giving me are excellent. |
|
| |
while I agree with your sentiment, the resources which are necessary to monitor all of the different parameters/affects/effects are not fully in place for double blind tests and would be lacking even further in your proposal. Raw data does no good if no one can understand it or even record it. |
|
| |
If you're trying to discover unknown secondary benefits of existing drugs, you're much better off simply tracking a broad section of the population against all their medications and medical indications. Which is, to a greater or lesser extent, being done. |
|
| |
A better idea would be the septuple blind study:
patient does not know if they are taking drug or placebo
doctor does not know is he is giving drug or placebo
neither doctor nor patient knows what disease patient has
patient does not know if he is in the study or not
doctor never actually went to medical school
doctor and patient accidentally meet at a flea market and haggle over rare collectable beer cans. |
|
| |
patient doesn't know s/he's actually her/is own doctor |
|
| |
doctor sells him/erself a beer can that is neither rare nor collectable. |
|
| |
Sounds like a Phillip K. Dick novel. |
|
| |
Actually, one of the best ways of tracking the effects of a drug (intended and unintended) is a DNA microarray. You test the drug with various cultured tissues, then use the microarray to determine which genes are expressed (as compared to untreated tissue). |
|
| |
I'd find a link, but I was making a poster for my drug design project until 3 this morning. |
|
| |
"Ask your physician if Placebo is right for you ...." |
|
| |
// neither doctor nor patient knows what disease patient has // |
|
| |
That's been Standard Operating Procedure in the NHS for decades ... |
|
| |
Besides, the doctor can always find what disease the patient had by referring to the autopsy report. |
|
| |
N-ple blind trial: all drugs and candy products are
exchanged and assigned a random label by machine. To
assure anonymity no patients are tracked or studied.
Efficacy is shown by whether society collapses or improves. |
|
| |