ForumGarden

If a new medicine were developed that would cure arthritis but cause a fatal reaction in 1 percent of those who took it, would you want it to be released to the public?

My opinion is that there are risks in everything. Who knows, I may be part of the 1%. But from risks, come a better product, we hope.

If you're going to die from the illness, then the risk factor is merely a matter of whether you die sooner or later. Otherwise, it would be down to whether I could live with the illness.

Yes, as long as the makers were quite open about the risks, then those who would need it could make their own informed decisions.

Woth the proviso that the risks and all known factors are fully explained to the patient.

I bet 1% is lower than the existing alternatives can claim, over the period they need to be taken to remain effective. You're not only offering a quick cure, you're reducing the final casualty list - there's even a word for it, "iatrogenic death - that is, death induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures". The article at http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar ... ath_02.htm has a summary of peer-reviewed estimates.

There are risks with aspirin, for heavens' sake! Informed decision...that's the key phrase.

Some story in the back of my mind of 3 - 5 young men as test people for some drug and it made the internet within the last 6 months or so, but they suffered horrificly... I don't know if I could do it....

minks wrote: Some story in the back of my mind of 3 - 5 young men as test people for some drug and it made the internet within the last 6 months or so, but they suffered horrificly... I don't know if I could do it....


That was a test of a new drug by a firm that had never tested drugs before.

Six guinea-pigs received the drug and all developed critical systems failure (one whose head also ?doubled? in size)

One has since been diagnosed with cancer.

The drugs firm went bankrupt.

but that was the first test of a new experimental drug, not the use of one with a known toxicity.

Bryn Mawr wrote: That was a test of a new drug by a firm that had never tested drugs before.

Six guinea-pigs received the drug and all developed critical systems failure (one whose head also ?doubled? in size)

One has since been diagnosed with cancer.

The drugs firm went bankrupt.

but that was the first test of a new experimental drug, not the use of one with a known toxicity.


well poke me in the eye with a red hot poker, that is just bloody criminal, still I would have to say no, what if I was the failure case? Is there an antidote? (is that the right word or did I just ask if there was a pun?) regardless I am the hugest wimp on the planet I do not think I could be a test rat.

minks wrote: well poke me in the eye with a red hot poker, that is just bloody criminal, still I would have to say no, what if I was the failure case? Is there an antidote? (is that the right word or did I just ask if there was a pun?) regardless I am the hugest wimp on the planet I do not think I could be a test rat.


The tests were subsequently independently reviewed and declared to have been run correctly according to guidelines - the reaction was just an unfortunate difference between men and rats (see there is a difference).

Poor sods were only paid £2,700 for the test.