The ethics of pay-to-play clinical trials are a minefield. Last week the HHS Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) stepped into that minefield. Are “pay-to-play” clinical trials ever ethically acceptable?
Search: “placebo”
We found 824 results for your search.
Stem cell therapies show great promise, but as yet the vast majority of that promise has not been validated in rigorous clinical trials. Unfortunately, for-profit stem cell clinics are running clinical trials that require patients to pay to be part of them (“pay-to-play”). These trials are not rigorous. Even more unfortunately, it appears that some universities are also running “pay-to-play” clinical trials that bear an uncomfortable resemblance to those run by for-profit clinics.
Share this:
This week, JAMA Internal Medicine published a clinical trial purporting to find that acupuncture helps stable angina. Here’s a hint: It doesn’t. It’s a bait-and-switch study that used “electroacupuncture” instead of acupuncture with poor blinding and lack of consideration of prior plausibility.
Share this:
This weekend, antivaxers descended upon San Diego Comic-Con wearing Guy Fawkes masks and holding signs with antivaccine talking points. Less than two months earlier, they had descended upon Disneyland dressed as Star Wars characters. What’s up with antivaxers trying to influence geek culture?
Share this:
Last month, HB 4710, a bill to license acupuncturists, was considered by the Michigan House of Representatives Health Policy Committee. If passed into law, HB 4710 would do far more than license the quackery that is acupuncture. It would also expand the scope of practice of acupuncturists to include homeopathy, “health coaching”, and dietary advice, and is yet another example of what practitioners of pseudoscientific medicine crave: State-granted legitimacy.
