Comments on: The Five A’s of Empty Arguments https://ethicalnag.org/2010/12/18/5-as-of-empty-arguments/ Marketing Ethics for the Easily Swayed Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:40:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Branksome https://ethicalnag.org/2010/12/18/5-as-of-empty-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-10675 Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:01:54 +0000 http://ethicalnag.org/?p=3435#comment-10675 Tam
“…clinical trial sites who provide them with free treatment that would otherwise be unavailable to them….”

Let’s be clear: Big Pharma is not running a charity here. Providing free treatment to poor patients is merely a byproduct of trying to get positive results published in order to boost sales.

Like

]]> By: Dr. Bob https://ethicalnag.org/2010/12/18/5-as-of-empty-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-9504 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:12:42 +0000 http://ethicalnag.org/?p=3435#comment-9504 Tam: “…Your bias is disappointing, and disrespectable…”

Hmmm, by this, I think you mean disrespectful? or not respectable? Neither of which would be an appropriate assessment for this post. I suspect your OWN bias is showing here.

Like

]]> By: Tam https://ethicalnag.org/2010/12/18/5-as-of-empty-arguments/comment-page-1/#comment-8439 Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:20:04 +0000 http://ethicalnag.org/?p=3435#comment-8439 First of all, thanks for this blog, I enjoy reading what you have to say. Just thought I should point out something important – your little blurb on Randomised Controlled Studies. Your explanation about case vs control is incomplete and overly simple, and implies that clinical trials are run outside of ICH-GCP. Especially today, trials conducted for serious illness such as cancer will use the standard level of treatment (ie. a scientifically proven chemotherapy regimen) for an illness as the control – the case group (as you called it) will receive standard treatment PLUS a new medication or device to see if it adds benefit on top of the standard treatment. Furthermore, randomisation is not always 50/50 – there is in incredible amount of variables that can be considered when randomising groups, such as disease staging, age, cognitive level, number of treatment arms, etc.
“It does not depend on things like how much a person needs treatment”!?
Well that statement in blatantly disgusting. There are plenty of clinical trial sites who take on specific studies based on what the demographic they are treating needs, to provide them with free treatment that would otherwise be unavailable to them.
Your bias is disappointing, and disrespectable of all the people out there working their butts off to help the people on these trials – generalisations are dangerous.

Like

]]>