Food coloring & hyperactivity?

[Umfriend]

Re-read the article please. The researcher explains all too well why a control group with placebo isn't needed for his research.

No. The researcher does not argue _why_ a control group isn't _needed_, instead he argues that as each vaccine is custom-made per individual, testing with a control group is inapplicable: you can't control for individual treatments. Why do you misrepresent his position?

Excuse me while I call it BS. The drug is tested on animals or cells in the lab much before it's tested on humans. You must show proof of concept before you introduce it to living beings. Learn the material first.

As the Wulf said, not only does it happen that drugs tested on animals turn out to be bad for humans, it also occurs that drugs work for animals but do not, or not as good as drugs already available, for humans. Nice argument to introduce quackery because 'it worked so well on mice'.

Again, you don't read and then you blame me for your miscomprehension.
A person is dieing of cancer. He's offered a new, yet untested treatment. He signs the paper because it's his last hope. Without his knowledge, he's put in the control group, getting PLACEBO! All his hopes, whether the drug works or not are thrown in the bin without his knowledge, for the sake of the experiment.

You stated "When someone is so desperately ill and beyond the knowledge and powers of medicine, asking to die with some dignity left, not like some beast, they won't let him do so, because of the same 'sanctity of life' they mock with placebo." which to me, signifies coercion. May be a misunderstanding I guess or unclear wording. I wonder whether you actually know how the procedures for these experiments run and how potential participants are informed of the options and possible consequences thereof. Or maybe the ethical standards in your neighbourhood differ from mine?

The last two I won't quote, no use. As of yet unfounded accusations that I feel (a) uncalled for (but, he, they're just like Nazi's so you might as well accuse them of anything) (b) as of yet unfounded and (c) not actually supporting any position other than that you are angry for one unrelated reason or another and feel this place and subject is suitable to vent it.

[az]

Also, placebos are used because they work - so the person getting placebos is getting more than a person getting nothing.

[Gurm]

Also, placebos are used because they work - so the person getting placebos is getting more than a person getting nothing.

Are you referring to the "placebo effect", or are you confused? Placebos are sugar pills. Nothing in 'em. We're not talking about a study where the control group gets a current med.

[TransformX]

No. The researcher does not argue _why_ a control group isn't _needed_, instead he argues that as each vaccine is custom-made per individual, testing with a control group is inapplicable: you can't control for individual treatments. Why do you misrepresent his position?

As the Wulf said, not only does it happen that drugs tested on animals turn out to be bad for humans, it also occurs that drugs work for animals but do not, or not as good as drugs already available, for humans. Nice argument to introduce quackery because 'it worked so well on mice'.
You stated "When someone is so desperately ill and beyond the knowledge and powers of medicine, asking to die with some dignity left, not like some beast, they won't let him do so, because of the same 'sanctity of life' they mock with placebo." which to me, signifies coercion. May be a misunderstanding I guess or unclear wording. I wonder whether you actually know how the procedures for these experiments run and how potential participants are informed of the options and possible consequences thereof. Or maybe the ethical standards in your neighbourhood differ from mine?

The last two I won't quote, no use. As of yet unfounded accusations that I feel (a) uncalled for (but, he, they're just like Nazi's so you might as well accuse them of anything) (b) as of yet unfounded and (c) not actually supporting any position other than that you are angry for one unrelated reason or another and feel this place and subject is suitable to vent it.

Read Wulfman's post, he understood my point and answered it.
As for the last two, just open the newspaper and read about all the different lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Doctors who take bribes, doctors who lie to their patients, pathologists that keep parts of deceased ones for further experiments or for their collection without the family's consent, etc. etc. etc.

edit: Worse part is that doctors usually cover up for each other. Happened so many times people stopped counting. That's why there are special lawyers who learned medicine so they can research and testify themselves about the findings, without needing a doctor to do so.
2nd edit: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...logies17m.html
While protecting the doctors, this article proves that there is a code of silence.

[Jammrock]

My oldest and one of my nephews have food color related hyperactivity. They are both naturally hyper, granted, but put Red #40 in their system and they start bouncing off the god damn walls. Completely uncontrollable. You'd be surprised what Red 40 is in. Children's vitamins, strawberry yogourt, every candy ever made, most kids cereals ...

[Jammrock]

are THOSE things linked to hyperactivity?
I'm also willing to bet that parents who give their children a lot of these foods also have a parenting style that induces hyperactivity.

My son used to go nuts after giving him Danon yogurt or his vitamins. We wondered why until we read the ingredients and found it had Red 40. We switched to Yoplay, which has no coloring, and stopped vitamins and his hyperactivity post eating dropped.

So while some of it may be the junk food and sodas, we give our kids very very little of either, anything with red 40 makes my oldest go nuts. Healthy food or not.

[Umfriend]

Are you referring to the "placebo effect", or are you confused? Placebos are sugar pills. Nothing in 'em. We're not talking about a study where the control group gets a current med.

Actually, we are. We're using 'placebo' because we're laymen and because in certain cases you need to use real placebo's as there are no current meds. This OT-subject is about controlled experiments.

[Umfriend]

Read Wulfman's post, he understood my point and answered it.

So do you still maintain that controlled testing of drugs is evil or not? That it is causing people to die as beasts as opposed to allow them to die with dignity which 'they' won't because of 'sanctity of life? What the Wulf adressed, to my mind, is your misunderstanding of the way these things actually work, not your ethical verdict.

As for the last two, just open the newspaper and read about all the different lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Doctors who take bribes, doctors who lie to their patients, pathologists that keep parts of deceased ones for further experiments or for their collection without the family's consent, etc. etc. etc.

I will not dispute that. I just don't see how it is relevant to the idea of controlled experiments with drugs on human beings which is what, as I see it at least, is the OT-subject at hand here.

[TransformX]

So do you still maintain that controlled testing of drugs is evil or not? That it is causing people to die as beasts as opposed to allow them to die with dignity which 'they' won't because of 'sanctity of life? What the Wulf adressed, to my mind, is your misunderstanding of the way these things actually work, not your ethical verdict.

what he signs is not a "get new hope form", but a "informed consent" form. like the name implies: it more or less states that he was told and understood the type of study he is going to take part of, and that he is not necessarily given treatment.

Formalities aside, when you have a fatal illness and you sign that form, you do so in hope that this new drugs could, if not save then prolong your life. At least here, there are experimental drugs for which you must sign a weaver before receiving, you sign that you hold nobody responsible yada yada yada. Imagine that a close relative of yours goes through either path and dies. You go 'damn, too bad that new drug didn't work' only to discover some time after that the drug actually did work, even if for limited cases, only your case was the placebo one. People and their families grow big hopes, it's not something you take for granted.

edit: By the way, the 'control group' for those who sign the weaver here, are those who simply don't want to take the risk and continue with the regular medication. No need for placebo.

[az]

Are you referring to the "placebo effect", or are you confused? Placebos are sugar pills. Nothing in 'em. We're not talking about a study where the control group gets a current med.

I was talking about the Placebo effect - which is "only" psychological, but nonetheless works, so why complain?

[az]

Formalities aside, when you have a fatal illness and you sign that form, you do so in hope that this new drugs could, if not save then prolong your life. At least here, there are experimental drugs for which you must sign a weaver before receiving, you sign that you hold nobody responsible yada yada yada. Imagine that a close relative of yours goes through either path and dies. You go 'damn, too bad that new drug didn't work' only to discover some time after that the drug actually did work, even if for limited cases, only your case was the placebo one. People and their families grow big hopes, it's not something you take for granted.

And this makes you worse off then not being part of the study exactly how? I'm not even asking why this makes you lose your dignity. Also Placebo effect (=hope) ist there and works, so you will have gotten something out of it. Maybe not as much as you've hoped for, but more than nothing. And you haven't lost anything.

edit: By the way, the 'control group' for those who sign the weaver here, are those who simply don't want to take the risk and continue with the regular medication. No need for placebo.

Wrong. You must establish whether a treatment works better than a placebo to correct for placebo effect.

[Wulfman]

edit: By the way, the 'control group' for those who sign the weaver here, are those who simply don't want to take the risk and continue with the regular medication. No need for placebo.

not necessarily. the patients your are talking about here (e.g. cancer, viral diseases) are those for whom no established therapy is working anymore. it's either "do nothing and die soon" or "try something and help at least those that come later". relatives will most likely already have said good-bye...
and to put that in perspective: for this initial studies you are talking about a handful of people are chosen.

as I said before: getting a placebo is not the short straw: the patient could also end up to be the one not dying from a heart attack because of side effects.

where it gets really tricky is testing drugs for children, who can't sign an informed consent form legally. but we do know that drugs have to be tested on them, because they respond differently...

mfg
wulfman

[Umfriend]

TX, some things are not clear to me and I hope you can enlighten me.
- Do you still believe that controlled testing methodologies for drugs on humans is evil?
- Do we agree on why Dr. Bandadi argues not to use controlled testing for his therapy (ethical consideration or scientific suitablility)?

[James_D]

Though I am not going to go into the debate about food coloring, i will add a comment to the testing methods of drugs. Clinical trials have shown again and again that double blind multicenter trials give the most accurate data about a drugs efficacy and the potential adverse effects. 70% of the phase 2 drugs are stopped due to toxicity, and only 20% of drugs that enter clinical trials end up as drugs in the market. Of course its debatable the ethical aspects about having incompetent patients signing and take the decision to join or not, and also whether to use placebo(which are still used in some clinical trials in EU) compared to an active drug, in double blind studies the doctors treating the patient are also in the not knowing group whether they have the new drug or a "placebo" and there are potential risks if an "active substance" is used when it comes to adverse effects or e.g. immune suppression and not knowing these due to the double blind can have severe consequences.
When it comes to using "evidence based research" it requires much bigger research groups, but this is now a new standard in Pediatric medicine, but its only effective after medicine has been cleared in adult medicine first. There are many ethical considerations when using this approach esp in pediatric medicine, children and neonates have a different physiology than compared to adults, and effect can be stronger, or adverse effects can be different.

JD.


And TX when it comes to doctors... what do you expect we are people too.

[Mehen]

Jesus, this thread really exploded - I was just pointing out that it sucks that there are a lot of things we can't do because of ethics - and because of that I will never be convinced. I see the same thing in psychology. So you end up with a lot of theories and a lot of truthiness.

(I, in no way, actually meant we SHOULD do such experiments)