Comment by caminante
2 days ago
My point remains (and that I learned) is efficacy in rodent studies is more than just "in vitro" or quackery.
>layperson to worry about, either.
We're not talking about laypeople without money nor access to pursue. Adams had money, access, and desperation.
Society would love to put this to bed, but pharma typically avoids funding RCTs for out-of-patent/cheap drugs so we may never get the answer.
Projecting human outcomes from rodent studies is 100% quackery
That's not true given FDA more or less requires rodent testing in pre-human trials.
You didn't know that?
They are a required step along the way to human trials.
But over 90% of drugs that show promise in rodents flunk out in human trials.
Something working in rodents is an indicator that it might be worth doing testing to see if it works and is safe for humans. But if you bet against it panning out, you'd still be right the overwhelming majority of the time.
The only thing you can project from rodent trial success is that it is worth continuing to study. It should not guide any human usage at that point.
1 reply →