16 ms·

I'm starting to think somebody has a bunch of truckloads of this stuff they gotta unload.

by ilikeitdark 2y ago

KptMarchewa 2y ago
Yes, Novo Nordisk. Largest EU company.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - atlas_hugged 2y ago
    Ew, go back to Reddit.
    - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
      [flagged]
im3w1l 2y ago
There is a global shortage.
refurb 2y ago
You'd be wrong. On multiple accounts - people can't "fake" clinical trial results like this to sell medication. And there is global shortage right now.
- killingtime74 2y ago
  nah, OP is an internet expert, lets just listen to them instead of this study
- JPLeRouzic 2y ago
  > people can't "fake" clinical trial results like this to sell medication Many clinical trials are controversial when they are positive. Most clinical trials are subcontracted. The subcontractor has a deep interest in pleasing his client. You can select patients at the beginning of the trial, or during the trial you can report that a patient with a "bad" result, just dropped out of the study. And indeed in most clinical trials there is no strong adverse effects (just weak) reported except when patients die. Moreover, the hospitals that implement the trial often only do the minimum to satisfy the principal investigator Just look at the field of neurodegenerative diseases or ask patients how negligently they have been treated.
  - refurb 2y ago
    > Many clinical trials are controversial when they are positive. Which isn't the same as being "faked". > Most clinical trials are subcontracted. They are not subcontracted, clinical trial sites are identified. They are basically doctors interested in running a trial. Usually done at academic hospitals. > The subcontractor has a deep interest in pleasing his client. No they don't. They have no vested interest beyond their own careers and publications. Doctors only put a few hours into a clinical trial each month, usually their own patients. Most of the work is done by clinical trial staff. The costs of the trials are paid for by the sponsor, but that money doesn't go into the doctor's pocket, it's the hospital. > You can select patients at the beginning of the trial, or during the trial you can report that a patient with a "bad" result, just dropped out of the study. But pretty much every trial is triple blinded. The company, doctor and patient don't know if the patient got the drug or the placebo. Placebos are chosen to pretty much be identical to the drug (people get injections, take pills that look exactly the same). And no, you can't just "say a patient dropped out". There is a predefined set of criteria that the doctor needs to follow. The patient needs to agree to follow them as well. But again, the doctor doesn't know who received what so how they can they "tweak" the results? Plus if a patient drops out, the results are penalized. The data doesn't just disappear. All data needs to be reported to the FDA for every patient, including all follow ups. > And indeed in most clinical trials there is no strong adverse effects (just weak) reported except when patients die. This is 100% false. All adverse events need to be reported, whether caused by the drug or not. This is why relatively innocuous drug have weird side effects like "diarrhea, constipation". The top adverse events have to be reported, even if it's 0.01% who had them. > Moreover, the hospitals that implement the trial often only do the minimum to satisfy the principal investigator No, the hospital doesn't know which patient received the drug or not. If the patient needs a blood test, they get a blood test like any other patient. And again, the process needs to be followed or else the deviation reported. All of that is reported to the FDA. If enough deviations happen, the FDA can say they won't approve the drug. > Just look at the field of neurodegenerative diseases or ask patients how negligently they have been treated. What are you talking about? Can you provide a source? You've already made many statements that are clearly false, which you would know if you had done even basic research into the field using google. You clearly don't know the field very well, so I'm not sure why you feel like your "ideas" of how trials are run are of any value.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

I'm starting to think somebody has a bunch of truckloads of this stuff they gotta unload.

KptMarchewa 2y ago

Yes, Novo Nordisk. Largest EU company.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
[flagged]
- atlas_hugged 2y ago
  Ew, go back to Reddit.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
    [flagged]

im3w1l 2y ago

There is a global shortage.

refurb 2y ago

You'd be wrong. On multiple accounts - people can't "fake" clinical trial results like this to sell medication. And there is global shortage right now.

killingtime74 2y ago
nah, OP is an internet expert, lets just listen to them instead of this study
JPLeRouzic 2y ago
> people can't "fake" clinical trial results like this to sell medication Many clinical trials are controversial when they are positive. Most clinical trials are subcontracted. The subcontractor has a deep interest in pleasing his client. You can select patients at the beginning of the trial, or during the trial you can report that a patient with a "bad" result, just dropped out of the study. And indeed in most clinical trials there is no strong adverse effects (just weak) reported except when patients die. Moreover, the hospitals that implement the trial often only do the minimum to satisfy the principal investigator Just look at the field of neurodegenerative diseases or ask patients how negligently they have been treated.
- refurb 2y ago
  > Many clinical trials are controversial when they are positive. Which isn't the same as being "faked". > Most clinical trials are subcontracted. They are not subcontracted, clinical trial sites are identified. They are basically doctors interested in running a trial. Usually done at academic hospitals. > The subcontractor has a deep interest in pleasing his client. No they don't. They have no vested interest beyond their own careers and publications. Doctors only put a few hours into a clinical trial each month, usually their own patients. Most of the work is done by clinical trial staff. The costs of the trials are paid for by the sponsor, but that money doesn't go into the doctor's pocket, it's the hospital. > You can select patients at the beginning of the trial, or during the trial you can report that a patient with a "bad" result, just dropped out of the study. But pretty much every trial is triple blinded. The company, doctor and patient don't know if the patient got the drug or the placebo. Placebos are chosen to pretty much be identical to the drug (people get injections, take pills that look exactly the same). And no, you can't just "say a patient dropped out". There is a predefined set of criteria that the doctor needs to follow. The patient needs to agree to follow them as well. But again, the doctor doesn't know who received what so how they can they "tweak" the results? Plus if a patient drops out, the results are penalized. The data doesn't just disappear. All data needs to be reported to the FDA for every patient, including all follow ups. > And indeed in most clinical trials there is no strong adverse effects (just weak) reported except when patients die. This is 100% false. All adverse events need to be reported, whether caused by the drug or not. This is why relatively innocuous drug have weird side effects like "diarrhea, constipation". The top adverse events have to be reported, even if it's 0.01% who had them. > Moreover, the hospitals that implement the trial often only do the minimum to satisfy the principal investigator No, the hospital doesn't know which patient received the drug or not. If the patient needs a blood test, they get a blood test like any other patient. And again, the process needs to be followed or else the deviation reported. All of that is reported to the FDA. If enough deviations happen, the FDA can say they won't approve the drug. > Just look at the field of neurodegenerative diseases or ask patients how negligently they have been treated. What are you talking about? Can you provide a source? You've already made many statements that are clearly false, which you would know if you had done even basic research into the field using google. You clearly don't know the field very well, so I'm not sure why you feel like your "ideas" of how trials are run are of any value.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]