Quote:
Originally Posted by pstinard  My point exactly! Alternative methods CAN be evidence based. They simply need need to build a data set (case studies, etc.) that show that their approach works. That's all evidence based medicine is asking: Does it work? The "why" can be worked out later.
Yes, exactly! But traditional medical approaches that have failed are NOT evidence based medicine. Evidence based medicine is a recent concept that (believe it or not) was developed in the 1990's, and a lot of older, failed approaches still need to be held up to higher standards and discarded if they don't really work.
No, the mechanism of action of MOST drugs is known--the article was pointing out a few examples of drugs for which the mechanism was not known at the time they were developed. The most important question is "does it work?" but obviously it helps if they know the mechanism, because it makes it easier to develop more useful drugs, as well as to know the interactions with other drugs that might result in side effects.
The reason they were making this point is that the mechanism of homeopathic medicine is not understood, either. And that's okay, IF there is a body of evidence that shows that it works. Mechanisms can be worked out later.
My next research project  . I will see if I can find out for you. My understanding is that if a drug is going to be marketed, they HAVE to publish the data that proves that it works, or make it available to the regulatory agencies (not all data is worthy of publication). The manufacturing techniques, though, are trade secrets, and they don't have to reveal those. They do have to prove safety and effectiveness of the final product, though.
Yes, and smearing evidence based medicine is definitely something they DON'T want to do. Otherwise, how can they show that their approach works? You can't have it both ways. (Sorry for the strange way the quotes are handled in this post--I can't fix them.) |
I almost bit my own hand off trying to not respond so thank you for taking the initiative!
Yes, it is important to understand how/if/why the medicine is targeting the appropriate pathways and networks and this is important in pathological and psychological medicines.
Even if it is not immediately known, this is always investigated once the efficacy has been established. It would be unethical, otherwise, to recommend or market the medication ... Yes, I know that after the fact a lot of meds are recalled or there is a development in the efficacy or lack thereof but that just goes to show that research is ongoing, even for 'approved' medicines and that we continually have to readjust our expectations and recommendations re: certain meds.
Okay, my mouth is now empty of hand.