11–20 of 48 posts
I'll make sure my kids eat (some) peanuts/peanut products before they develop an allergy.
I also wonder if the fact that my wife has a mild nut allergy and therefore avoids nuts would have been a factor, the girls would not have been exposed to nuts in the womb. Just guessing though, ask a doctor.
> Though only 4.3 percent of children receiving the active drug experienced side effects categorized as severe, compared to less than 1 percent of the children on placebo... So are they saying <1% (ie atleast one) of children on placebo experienced severe side effects?
It does not mean necessarily mean that the effects were caused by being given the placebo ("placebo effect").
> Though only 4.3 percent of children receiving the active drug experienced side effects categorized as severe, compared to less than 1 percent of the children on placebo... So are they saying <1% (ie atleast one) of children on placebo experienced severe side effects?
It’s because they don’t have a good causality link for adverse effect. If something bad happens, you’re not sure it’s because of the treatment. So in the accounting, you take everything adverse against the treatment, wether it’s the placebo or the medicine under test, and you compare the difference between the two as rate of adverse effect for the medicine under test. And then there is a giant poker game to balance t…
Obviously a silly example but if things aren't reported because they don't appear to be connected to the study, we don't have the data to analyse at a higher level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s because they don’t have a good causality link for adverse effect. If something bad happens, you’re not sure it’s because of the treatment. So in the accounting, you take everything adverse against the treatment, wether it’s the placebo or the medicine under test, and you compare the difference between the two as rate of adverse effect for the medicine under test. And then there is a giant poker game to balance t…
I met someone who worked on the admin side of NHS trials. They said exactly what you posted, anything noteworthy that happens should be reported. If you take the placebo and get hit by a bus outside the hospital, it should be reported. That way if 10% of patients in the study get hit by a bus they have more data. Obviously a silly example but if things aren't reported because they don't appear to be connected to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s because they don’t have a good causality link for adverse effect. If something bad happens, you’re not sure it’s because of the treatment. So in the accounting, you take everything adverse against the treatment, wether it’s the placebo or the medicine under test, and you compare the difference between the two as rate of adverse effect for the medicine under test. And then there is a giant poker game to balance t…
I met someone who worked on the admin side of NHS trials. They said exactly what you posted, anything noteworthy that happens should be reported. If you take the placebo and get hit by a bus outside the hospital, it should be reported. That way if 10% of patients in the study get hit by a bus they have more data. Obviously a silly example but if things aren't reported because they don't appear to be connected to the…
I'll make sure my kids eat (some) peanuts/peanut products before they develop an allergy.
I'll make sure my kids eat (some) peanuts/peanut products before they develop an allergy.
I'll make sure my kids eat (some) peanuts/peanut products before they develop an allergy.
I'll make sure my kids eat (some) peanuts/peanut products before they develop an allergy.
Careful with that line of thinking. My son was 6 months old when I gave him a small bit of the peanut butter cookie I was eating. He could have died. I would not wish that experience on anyone.
Of course, a lot of money went into the regulatory process of running the trials and getting it approved, but I still suspect people will be critical if they charge $15,000 per year for it.