alt Hacker NewsThis may be a philosophical point of view, but I do not see much personal value in clinical trials. You're banking on there being a significant shift in technology/knowledge that occurs right between the time you are diagnosed and the time you have left to treat it. Just as a Bayesian probability, it's extremely unlikely to be the case.
Most studies that which reach stage 3 will not be approved, and that's because they're found to to be unhelpful or even harmful. So the most likely scenario is you do nothing or even hurt yourself by seeking out clinical studies, all of which will be optimistically framed as promising and potentially revolutionary. This can be particularly dangerous if you're opting into a trial in lieu of the standard treatment, as opposed to in addition to such.
Replies
I think because trials take so long, the probability might be higher than you say.
All ground-breaking treatments/therapies were initially only available as a clinical trial.
> You're banking on there being a significant shift in technology/knowledge that occurs right between the time you are diagnosed and the time you have left to treat it. Just as a Bayesian probability, it's extremely unlikely to be the case.
The probability that I think you're talking about here is not actually relevant, given that the trial is already underway. Basically, the "potential advance" event has already happened. (Similarly, the probability of getting shot by an arrow is not relevant once the arrow's already poking out of your body.)
Given the trial is already underway, the probability that matters is the fraction of treatment candidates at the phase you are considering that make it all the way through; for phase 3 trials, this is 58-65% [0], which is actually pretty good. Of course, rates for earlier phases are much worse because there's attrition at each phase.
0: https://patentpc.com/blog/clinical-trial-success-rates-how-m...
I lost somone to a rare cancer with almost zero chance of survival. A treatment with 65% success was available 30 days after they died. Ill always wonder if things could have been different. Maybe if we looked harder for trials but like you we thought it a hopeless waste of the limited time left.
That’s definitely one way to look at it.
I would just say that ‘dangerous’ is relative and when the standard of care leaves effectively no hope, your tolerance for risk can change. Yes this does increase that chance of shortsighted decisions or manipulation. That just comes with the territory, I’m still very appreciative that we have the option to elect to participate in the peocess.