Parkinson's Disease Tulip


advertisement
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2008, 12:15 PM #21
indigogo's Avatar
indigogo indigogo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: "all the way over on the West Coast"
Posts: 1,032
15 yr Member
indigogo indigogo is offline
Senior Member
indigogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: "all the way over on the West Coast"
Posts: 1,032
15 yr Member
Default lazy science

Peggy -

Did anyone challenge Mike McDermott on his your reply to your question about sub groups, "if the sampling was large enough it would take care of such discrepancies." ??

Seems like a pretty big "if" to me. Aren't we having trouble getting enough people in the trials anyway? I thought that was the whole point of the problem; sub groups were skewing the results because the whole group was small.

And how can "such discrepancies" be accounted for if we don't even know how many sub groups to account for?

Lazy science. We'll keep having failures at this rate.
__________________
Carey

“Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world’s estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.” — Susan B. Anthony
indigogo is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
"Thanks for this!" says:
RLSmi (07-14-2008)

advertisement
Old 07-14-2008, 10:26 PM #22
ZucchiniFlower's Avatar
ZucchiniFlower ZucchiniFlower is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 782
15 yr Member
ZucchiniFlower ZucchiniFlower is offline
Member
ZucchiniFlower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 782
15 yr Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacem View Post
Not every country uses double-blind clinical trials to test the pharmaceuticals used. I seem to recall that the PRC was using spheramine treatments - what were their results? What about other countries? This might be purely a "local" problem of relying on a broken model (double blind clinical trials) all the while bolstering its reputation by proclaiming it to be a "gold standard".

Also, what happened to grounded research where the theory was grounded in the data rather than the data being derived against a specific theoretical background? Did grounded research get lost in the dust?
I think the double blind aspect is important in PD trials because of the extraordinary placebo effect associated with people with PD.

Question? I can't recall if the placebo effect can be long term. I think it was in some cases, but I don't know how common that is. Thinking of that brain surgery where some people just got a hole in their heads!
ZucchiniFlower is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cere 120 clinical trial Dottie Parkinson's Disease 1 08-22-2007 03:49 PM
Failed Clinical Trial jeanb Parkinson's Disease 6 08-18-2007 06:42 AM
CLINICAL TRIAL...Phase III Trial with Pimavanserin in Patients with PD Psychosis Stitcher Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials 0 06-16-2007 12:23 AM
Clinical Trial for Stenosis marmar Spinal Disorders & Back Pain 1 08-30-2006 12:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin • Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.7.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

NeuroTalk Forums

Helping support those with neurological and related conditions.

 

The material on this site is for informational purposes only,
and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment
provided by a qualified health care provider.


Always consult your doctor before trying anything you read here.