Clinical trials – credibility issue?
In general clinical trials are important and necessary. It is like in any other area that one has to show that the “things” (in this case, medicines/treatments) work as expected – clinical trials serve such purpose.
However, in medicines area, underlying scientific concepts and practices are extremely poor hence “clinical trials” practices face credibility issue. For example, developing products (tablet/capsule) clinical trials (bioequivalence test – regulatory requirement) are conducted which indeed lack clinical relevance and usefulness. Therefore, it could be argued that such tests indeed expose subjects, often healthy human volunteers, needlessly to potent chemicals in the name of medicines development. (link)
Similarly, relating to Corona virus pandemic, there appears to be rush towards development of medicines/vaccines. It may be argued that as the underlying analytical science is not well-established to monitor virus and/or its “disease” it would be very difficult to conduct appropriate and validated “clinical trials” (link)
In short, running clinical trials is a good idea, however, conducting appropriate and useful clinical trials remains challenging that is where the confusion is.
