Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JohnM543's avatar

Kind of like how the original trial for AZT (a failed chemo drug used to treat AIDS) was stopped early, or how more recently Remdesivir (failed Ebola drug) was stopped early for COVID.

From a 1989 article about AZT

"The most serious problem with the original study, however, is that it was never completed. Seventeen weeks into the study, when more patients had died in the placebo group, the study was stopped, five months prematurely, for “ethical” reasons: It was considered unethical to keep giving people a placebo when the drug might keep them alive longer. Because the study was stopped short, and all subjects were put on AZT, no scientific study can ever be conducted to prove unequivocally whether AZT does prolong life."

"In the study that won FDA approval for AZT, the one fact that swayed the panel of judges was that the AZT group outlived the placebo group by what appeared to be a landslide. The ace card of the study, the one that canceled out the issue of the drug’s enormous toxicity, was that 19 persons had died in the placebo group and only one in the AZT group. The AZT recipients were also showing a lower incidence of opportunistic infections.

While this data staggered the panel that approved the drug, other scientists insisted that it meant nothing — because it was so shabbily gathered, and because of the unblinding. Shortly after the study was stopped, the death rate accelerated in the AZT group. “There was no great difference after a while,” says Dr. Brook, “between the treated and the untreated group.”"

Sure seems like the treatment group was being handled differently to keep them alive for the study. I remember reading somewhere that they were receiving weekly blood transfusions to keep them healthier to counteract AZT effects...

https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-and-the-azt-scandal-spin-1989-feature-sins-of-omission/

Expand full comment
Baird Brightman's avatar

OK. Let's create a process ("science") to determine if a "treatment" is safe and effective. Then, let's break that process because a treatment MIGHT be beneficial for a few people, thus preventing us from any confidence about that treatment for the larger population. What science giveth, it can taketh away.

Waiting for the final results of a RCT is hard. The scientists conducting it start acting like kids on a long car trip: "Mommy, are we there yet?"!

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts