Interesting take on this. I'll freely admit to not having read the original article in its entirety, nor even of knowing the author from the proverbial Adam. With that disclaimer firmly in place ;) I must say, I got a very different read from the excerpt you shared here
( ... )
I think that makes an interesting argument and I agree with his/her assessment of the excerpt. However, I still would agree with you that Storm is dangerously uninformed and his ranting borders on criminally negligent.
While many people are justifiably upset with the corruption of commercial pharmaceutical development and marketing, many are not willing to take responsibility for their own part in the ugly cycle that results in unsafe or ineffectual drugs making it to the market. I, like you, have had to jump through the bureaucratic hoops required to perform any kind of data collection that involved human beings (in my case it was even more insane because I was surveying HIV/AIDS knowledge in high school aged kids and required parental consent out the wazoo) and I know that when experimentation is involved it gets even more complex. Scientists do need regulations, especially because there is a sense of urgency when struggling to find a treatment or a cure for some horrific ailment
( ... )
I'm not especially impressed, seeing as how the article is someone concluding that because some unethical researchers abused a bunch of apes (which was unquestionably terrible and wrong) that the entire structure of human clinical research trials is terrible and wrong. I've yet to read a clinical trial with a study design like "to verify the efficacy of anti-depressant X, we recruited 107 women of childbearing age, impregnated them, encouraged them to form attachments to their prospective children, and then had them all seized by the foster system unjustly."
I'm also inclined to have a pretty poor opinion of someone who writes a supposedly well-researched article and opens with "I have no stats, but I'm pretty sure this is true" even if they assert that they would update the article if provided with them. You're the one writing the article. Do your own fucking research.
I work at the Ohio State University Medical Center in a research capacity. The cancer center is very big on clinical trials and not just in a "last only hope" sense. It is all with informed consent. All patients involved in clinical trials receive AT LEAST the normal standard of care for whatever they are being treated for.
Comments 4
Reply
While many people are justifiably upset with the corruption of commercial pharmaceutical development and marketing, many are not willing to take responsibility for their own part in the ugly cycle that results in unsafe or ineffectual drugs making it to the market. I, like you, have had to jump through the bureaucratic hoops required to perform any kind of data collection that involved human beings (in my case it was even more insane because I was surveying HIV/AIDS knowledge in high school aged kids and required parental consent out the wazoo) and I know that when experimentation is involved it gets even more complex. Scientists do need regulations, especially because there is a sense of urgency when struggling to find a treatment or a cure for some horrific ailment ( ... )
Reply
I'm also inclined to have a pretty poor opinion of someone who writes a supposedly well-researched article and opens with "I have no stats, but I'm pretty sure this is true" even if they assert that they would update the article if provided with them. You're the one writing the article. Do your own fucking research.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment