'Again' This post assumes Ropren does what SLA says it does. We have all read the posts of people who don't believe this to be true so please don't reply with the same argument that has already been (over)stated
There has been a lot of talk on the SLA thread on the fact that they havn't published double blind tests that would allow Ropren to be accepted by western regulatory authorities.
As much as we love to believe that the way we do things in the west are perfect (or at least the best) I prefer to look outside the square!
There is (IMO) a fantastic article in New Scientist on 23 August on placebo's and the problems with the gold standard of western medicine the "double blind test"
For those that don't know, a double blind is when not only the patient doesn't know if they are getting the drug or a placebo but the person giving the drug doesn't know as well, in case they influence the result with a different attitude towards who they are giving the drug to.
This study found that an ineffective drug can be better than a placebo in a standard trial.
They also found that often an active drug is not better than a placebo in a substantial trial, even when they can be confident that the active drug does work.
This story concentrates on painkillers which it is easy to understand the brain (placebo effect) can do amazing things if it is fooled.
The person is given the drug in a standard "double blind" test and as you would expect the painkiller performed better than the placebo.
Standard interpretation, the drug works.
However they then gave the same drug to people without telling them why, the drug did not work at all!
Why is that??? Should you allow the drug to be accepted because it did pass a double blind
The person doing the study found that Diazepam doesn't reduce anxiety in patients after an operation unless they know they are taking it.
He also found that if you do not tell people they are getting an injection of morphine, you have to inject at least 12 milligrams to get a painkilling effect, whereas if you tell them, a far lower dose can make a difference.
When it comes to something like painkillers, we have to use a double blind test to try to get a result above the placebo effect to prove a drug has some sort of result
I think the double blind test is ineffective in proving anything. Yet it is the best we have got.
To those that are still reading, well done, I will now try to talk about SLA.
The "double blind test" was invented to try and prove drugs have an effect above the placebo effect.
Now I confess I am not from a medical background, nor am I from a mathamatical/statistical background, yet I find it hard to believe my brain can "cure" cirrhosis of the liver or other diseases such as cancer.
Just out of curiosity lets say I think I have invented a drug that cures breast cancer. I try this drug on a select group of women and 80% are cured.
Can the placebo effect allow someone to be cured of breast cancer (or cirrhosis?). Even if it cures some, can it allow the results I am getting with my drug?
Do I have to go through the same tests as a painkiller has to even though it was proved from the start that my drug cures breast cancer in over 80% of patients?
What i am saying is i can understand the placebo effect on something like a painkiller but I find it hard to believe it on something like cirossis of the liver
If my drug cures 80% of people with breast cancer and I have not done double blinds, does that mean I should be rejected from being allowed to give my drug to those wommen?
Lets say my "cure" has been accepted by russia and the demand will be greater than I can actually produce for at least the next 5 years.
As a company should I be worried that 'western' countries may not accept my drug immediately? Or should I be worried that i cannot supply the one country that does accept it?
As a MD I know where I would concentrate my efforts. And its not on convincing the TGA, its on supplying the market that wants my drug!!
SLA Price at posting:
45.7¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
