Editing Talk:2530: Clinical Trials
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:That's exactly how I understood it as well. Maybe that wasn't Randall's intent, but it does seem to convey a skeptical tone about the untested vaccines and their related mandates? [[Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1|127.0.0.0]] 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | :That's exactly how I understood it as well. Maybe that wasn't Randall's intent, but it does seem to convey a skeptical tone about the untested vaccines and their related mandates? [[Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1|127.0.0.0]] 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
::Except the vaccines HAVE gone through clinical trials? Calling the vaccines "untested" is quite a reach, since they have actually been very well tested. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.228|172.68.132.228]] 18:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | ::Except the vaccines HAVE gone through clinical trials? Calling the vaccines "untested" is quite a reach, since they have actually been very well tested. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.228|172.68.132.228]] 18:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
I would say this in relation to the mutiple treatments for Covid19 some of which have great clinical evaluation, others less so. I'll make a first draft [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 21:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC) | I would say this in relation to the mutiple treatments for Covid19 some of which have great clinical evaluation, others less so. I'll make a first draft [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 21:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
Line 16: | Line 14: | ||
Shouldn't Test if it works be step 2? Have idea, see if it works, impliment? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.137|172.68.129.137]] 01:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | Shouldn't Test if it works be step 2? Have idea, see if it works, impliment? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.137|172.68.129.137]] 01:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
− | :No. Steps 1 and 2 both include elements of testing and exploration; you need to perform experiments to come up with a good idea and convince -yourselves- that it is, in fact, good, and then you likely need to perform or at least show more tests to convince others that it is, in fact a good idea. But the addition of clinical trials added a further "and then you need to double triple check that your idea actually works rather than that it seemed to work in your initial experiments" step to (try to) avoid bad side effects and false correlation. | + | :No. Steps 1 and 2 both include elements of testing and exploration; you need to perform experiments to come up with a good idea and convince -yourselves- that it is, in fact, good, and then you likely need to perform or at least show more tests to convince others that it is, in fact a good idea. But the addition of clinical trials added a further "and then you need to double triple check that your idea actually works rather than that it seemed to work in your initial experiments" step to (try to) avoid bad side effects and false correlation. [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC) |
:I'm of the opinion that it was part of the joke... since it does seem to follow the actual behavioral pattern of "do thing, promote thing, [justify thing], propagate thing"... which makes this thread of conversation both topical and meta (kudos to Randall if ''this'' result was intended)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.4|162.158.107.4]] 21:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | :I'm of the opinion that it was part of the joke... since it does seem to follow the actual behavioral pattern of "do thing, promote thing, [justify thing], propagate thing"... which makes this thread of conversation both topical and meta (kudos to Randall if ''this'' result was intended)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.4|162.158.107.4]] 21:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | Mention of "anti-worming treatments" in the explanation. This is misleading, and gives the impression that drugs can only have a single function. It's like talking about the use of "headache medicine" for preventing heart attacks. If you want to refer to a specific medicine, do so by name but make damn sure that your claims about that medicine are accurate [[User:Mneme|Mneme]] ([[User talk:Mneme|talk]]) 04:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | |
While the awareness of clinical trials is of course more relevant because of COVID, I don't think this is intended to be topical. The title is very straightforwards-- "the invention of clinical trials" and is almost joke-less (basically just the format). The real joke is in the title text, where it's pointed out that because the "standard of care" before the invention of clinical trials was not to do clinical trials, we didn't need to go through this step to start doing them; just convince people it was a good idea. 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | While the awareness of clinical trials is of course more relevant because of COVID, I don't think this is intended to be topical. The title is very straightforwards-- "the invention of clinical trials" and is almost joke-less (basically just the format). The real joke is in the title text, where it's pointed out that because the "standard of care" before the invention of clinical trials was not to do clinical trials, we didn't need to go through this step to start doing them; just convince people it was a good idea. 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC) |