30 06 11 - 09:53
Person 1: It's unfortunate things are that way, but we have to plan for them to be that way.
Person 2: It's not right that things are this way, so let's insist they change.
Liberals and other Crowdist-dominated people (including most conservatives) think that our best policy consists in manipulating people toward the right answer.
Conservatives realize that not only does human nature not change, but it varies from individual to individual, and natural selection to improve human nature is our highest priority.
Well, here's one from the Archives of Internal Medicine that most certainly did get published. It's an analysis of an old clinical trial, STEPS, which was conducted for Neurontin (gabapentin) during the 1990s.
But that's not quite right. The authors find, by analyzing a large trove of documents released during lawsuit discovery proceedings, that STEPS was not really intended to be a clinical trial. Instead, it was a marketing program:
Documents demonstrated that STEPS was a seeding trial posing as a legitimate scientific study. Documents consistently described the trial itself, not trial results, to be a marketing tactic in the company's marketing plans. Documents demonstrated that at least 2 external sources questioned the validity of the study before execution, and that data quality during the study was often compromised. Furthermore, documents described company analyses examining the impact of participating as a STEPS investigator on rates and dosages of gabapentin prescribing, finding a positive association. None of these findings were reported in 2 published articles.
Here's more at Medscape. STEPS was allegedly a Phase IV post-approval trial, but it was unblinded and pretty much uncontrolled. Instead of taking place at a small number of centers, it seems to have been set up to enroll as many physicians as possible (they ended up with 772!), with each of them bringing in a handful of patients.
This is an extremely foul technique, which brings the companies who use it, the entire drug industry, and the whole idea of clinical research into disrepute. For money. I feel like spitting on the floor. - In the Colon
He is a delusional liberal.
If you make something profitable, it will be gamed. You therefore need a better system of self-control than "it's science, so it must be sacred, so occasionally we should poke around to see if cheating is occurring."
If you concentrate power, cheating will occur.
The conservative view is simply that cheating will occur, so we need to be very skeptical about science and make it jump through a lot of hoops to prove both accuracy and relevance.