The story of a Pill to Prevent HIVis reported by ABC News among others.
Is it just me or does it sound like a dangerous waste of time?
To me it sounds like
1) that pill sounds dangerous in itself (and we will try it on people to see exactly how bad it is)
2) it is going to be impossible to measure the actual effectiveness of the pill.
I could go around and give HIV negative people sugared watered for five years and wait to see how many people got HIV. Statistically, it will be either the same, more than or less than the average. But if I administer it to people (as reported in the article) who have remained negative for many years and they remain negative, exactly how much will the pill have contributed to their alleged reinforced resistance to HIV.
Plain criminal, as with all trials, that's what it sounds like to me.
Is it just me or does it sound like a dangerous waste of time?
To me it sounds like
1) that pill sounds dangerous in itself (and we will try it on people to see exactly how bad it is)
2) it is going to be impossible to measure the actual effectiveness of the pill.
I could go around and give HIV negative people sugared watered for five years and wait to see how many people got HIV. Statistically, it will be either the same, more than or less than the average. But if I administer it to people (as reported in the article) who have remained negative for many years and they remain negative, exactly how much will the pill have contributed to their alleged reinforced resistance to HIV.
Plain criminal, as with all trials, that's what it sounds like to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment