Psycho-Babble Medication | about biological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Research (Re: Provigil/Dex Study Details) JonW

Posted by Ritch on May 23, 2002, at 20:54:45

In reply to Research (Re: Provigil/Dex Study Details) Ritch, posted by JonW on May 23, 2002, at 13:01:42

> > That still is fairly recent (2 years). Isn't it interesting how one study can show no better effectiveness than placebo and yet another one shows equal >effectiveness to dexedrine? I guess about the only thing you can trust is anecdotal experience (here for example), or a large clinical trial (even then..). >I wonder if there has been or will be a study done with "stimulant naive" adult subjects?
> Hi Mitch,
> Seemingly inconsistent performance in controlled clinical trials could be explained by a drug not being very potent. Moclobemide, for example, isn't a very potent drug for treating social phobia. In at least two controlled studies it performed no better than placebo, while there are at least two other controlled studies where it was shown to be effective for social phobia.
> I don't think anecdotal research is useless, but it should definitely be confirmed by controlled studies. If there is one type of research you can trust, it's not anecdotal. Anyone could get lucky and be led to the drug that saves their life, but the chances of success are far greater if you try drugs based on real data. Interestingly, I remember reading an article not too long ago about how the majority of outpatients wouldn't qualify for many of the clinical studies that get drugs approved. I wonder how significant that is. As a treatment resistent case, I can't help but think that's a bad thing.
> Jon

Hi Jon,

Good points. I wasn't really advocating individual anecdotal experiential "hearsay" should *replace* "hard data", I just think that the "hard data" that you see floating about unfortunately just *probably*, isn't a lot more *trustworthy* than a *collection* of anecdotal experiences that you might find here (or elsewhere). The trouble do you get the "hard data" to be *MORE* reliable than a collection of shared anecdotal experiences? You can't do that with a dozen people here and there, IMO. A lot of the abstracts that you read have a very small number of subjects-I have seen "studies" done on eight people. Hmmmm. Also, treatment resistant and treatment intolerant cases tend to be statistical *anomalies* that fall "outside the curve". As a treatment resistant or treatment intolerant *individual*, the findings of a given "study" aren't going to be nearly as relevant to *you* as it wouldbe to a random "typical" person experiencing a major depressive episode, panic attack, etc.





Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Medication | Framed

poster:Ritch thread:104737