clinical trials

i was just thinking of awful things that could happen, and i'm not bothered about ill-effects if they're short-lived.

*N.B. That's total speculation. Invest in knee-razor just in case

*awesome*

thanks nath! that's actually helpful... i think i am gonna apply, heh heh.

what's porton down, beanz?

have another friend who was injected with small amounts of ketamine once a week for a month to determine what it's effects would be on a 'former habitual ecstasy user'.

i reckon the best way to search for trials is thru university message boards/ads anyway..

Portman Down (sp?) was a chemical/biological weapons testing plant, wasn't it?

most hospital research centers (esp. neurology and psychiatry departments) are looking for volunteers; just give them a call or look in the newspapers. the sessions can last anything from 3 hours to a whole day, and you can take part to several experiments a week. in brain imaging testing, there is a slight discomfort caused by the electrodes they stick to your brain, and the fact that you have to sit extremely still and blink your eyes only when told to do so, but the tests are very easy; for the most part, you have to look at words/images on a screen. it's all very safe, the only part that sucks is that your hair becomes a gooey mess and then you have to take the bus with electrode marks on your face.

oh, and don't ever pay for a directory! dodgy indeed.

Porton Down is the government's 'top secret' military biochemical research unit and it started by creating poison gases to use in the trenches during WWI. It's famous for recruiting soldiers to do research into the common cold and actually squirting them with sarin instead.

Informed consent is just that--you only agree to participate after you have a full understanding of the potential risks and benefits (although obv. some of these will be unknown, depending on the trial stage). In the U.S. (and in the UK I am sure) there are all sorts of laws designed to protect trial participants--it's not like the bad old days of the Tuskeegee syphilis studies. So I feel pretty good about clinical trials in general and am seriously considering participation in an HIV vaccine trial.

Check out this clinical trial database, which is run out of the U.S. National Institutes of Health but lists trials all over the world:

www.clinicaltrials.gov

A friend of mine was in several double-blind anti-depressant studies a while back and they really fucked with you -- especially considering that just about the only reason you'd do one of those things is that you NEED the medication but can't afford it on your own. And because they didn't want to prejudice their results or whatever, no one would tell you what psychological side-effects to expect, so you never knew whether it was YOU feeling muted/disconnected/schizophrenic or just the drugs. Motherless goats.

Definitely study the fine print.

Two drug trial men critically ill

Google clinical trial deaths northfield

The thing that struck me about this story when I heard it this morning was that all six people in the initial trial (well, eight including those given the placebo) were given it at the same time. Wouldn't it have been safer to give it to one first, rather than endangering the lives of six at once? But then I thought, well if the first one did fall ill, who is going to be prepared to take it then? It might have just been an unlucky allergic reaction, or a coincidence, but who is going to take that risk, even if subsequent tests suggest that that is the case? So the development cycle of a perfectly good drug might get stopped in its tracks just because of an inappropriate first subject. Maybe this kind of thing does happen. Dunno.

...though Sky News broke it last night long before the Beeb...

Alba, your 'test it on one person then another later then another later' sounds rather convoluted. It'd lead to a massive increase in paperwork, nurses on-duty, etc and I can't see it being workable in any current trials hospital. Not when the risk of a bad reaction is as low as it is anyhow.

what, not because several people are dangerously ill in what looks like a massively flawed trial? jesus christ almighty. i have no idea what you mean by this frankly imbecilic statement, but i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's not meant to be quite as cold, inhuman and downright fucking despicable as it sounds.

Wouldn't it have been safer to give it to one first, rather than endangering the lives of six at once?

alba OTM, say profs. "according to the standard medical text, trials of this sort should avoid giving all the doses simultaneously"

and if anyone still thinks this is isn't a big deal - or that it's only in the news because marshall works for the BBC - then read this and look at her fucking face.

I don't think it is being in any way cynical to suggest that news people know how to get stuff into the news (and therefore potentially increase the care he is getting).

xpost

Fucking hell.

Could we stop talking about the girlfriend? She is not the story.

I'd hope so, to be honest.

Thomas Hanke, Chief scientific officer stated: “There has been no issue on the safety of the drug on animals. This is not relevant.” He went on to issue an denial that the drug had ever been tested on dogs.

“The drug has not been tested on dogs or rats. It was tested on other mammals.”

xpost

so she's the head of BBC current affairs, is she? come on, people, a "bbc producer" could mean she handles the phone-ins on local radio. i don't think she's got a fucking hotline to the six o'clock news.

onimo and lauren, meanwhile, OTM. is compassion being rationed round your way, forest pines? :(

I think it must be.

I do have lots of sympathy for them, but they're not completely innocent victims.

Incidentally, I'm sure animal rights activists will have a field day with this story - "see! animal testing is worthless!" - even though this sort of event is the sort of thing that banning animal testing would lead to more and more of.

xpost: One of the stories I read said the going rate is £150 per day. Which is rather more than I get paid for my job.

I've been thinking this too.

Plus you can moonlight as the bloke from the giant satsuma gag.

to which, i hope, the host replied: "so, caller, you're a philanthropist who earns absolutely no money for whatever it is you do, and never uses any medicines?"

they're not completely innocent victims

okay, i'll accept that if you're going to do this then you should be aware that there's a degree of risk. but something seems to have gone cataclysmically wrong here, and i don't think we can put this down to "o well, that wasn't a good batch. next!"

and also, y'know, basic fellow human feeling and all that? lots of people hurt themselves doing things that are substantially more twatty - eg getting drunk or driving carelessly. i also assume your attitude towards any british or american soldiers or reservists getting themselves killed in iraq is the same: "ach, they knew the risks?"

i'm not saying human guinea-pigs are pioneering, selfless philanthropists. they're doing it for the money - just like you when you're sitting behind your linux terminal with a steaming mug of tea. but it's one of those "jobs" that is profoundly fucking useful for the rest of society - unlike what you or i do, let's be frank.

i'm very keen to hear affectian's take on this today.

Yes, I'm not sure what the point of Forest Pines' theoretical annual salary is.

they so are!

When they signed up, were they thinking: "Wow, I'm doing my bit for the future health of millions!" Or were they thinking "Woo, cash!" I have no idea.

How does it make'em "not so innocent?"

Either they:

a) understood the risks and were willing to go ahead anyway
b) were too stupid to understand the risks, but the doctors were willing to let them go ahead anyway.

I don't see why I'm being attacked so much just because I can think rationally about this sort of stuff.

Ken C is being his usual smart-arse fuckwitted self, but has accidentally hit on a point: these people *are* selling their bodies just as a prostitute does.

when you or i go to work in the morning, which are we doing?

Ergo, they probably did not know or understand the risks.

You go into it knowing full well that something bad might happen, that's why you get paid so much. They're not going to say "there's a chance your head will burst and you'll spend six months of agony in intensive care" but you're putting an UNTESTED DRUG in your body, of course there's a risk of something going wrong.

From the perspective of a fellow clinical trialee, my first thought was "Oh, it was bound to happen sooner or later. At least they'll get some massive compensation for all this."

From the perspective of a fellow human being, it's more like "Oof, that's absolutely horrific." Especially after reading this:

"First they began tearing their shirts off complaining of fever, then some screamed out that their heads felt like they were about to explode.

After that they started fainting, vomiting and writhing around in their beds.

An Asian guy next to me started screaming and his breathing went haywire as though he was having a terrible panic attack.

They put an oxygen mask on him but he kept tearing it off, shouting ‘Doctor, doctor, please help me!’ He started convulsing, shouting that he was getting shooting pains in his back."

Maybe bacause you think people are stupid for not understanding information they didn't recieve.

You didn't consider

c) The testers didn't know or understood the risks, so it would have been impossible to convey those risks to the people being tested.

Do you think for a minute that "your head might treble in size" was on any information leaflets?

I don't see what's "rational" about being determined to blame the sick people here. Yes, they knowingly took a risk - but no-one involved had any idea about the extent of that risk.

you really don't pay that much though. they should give you stock options on the drug itself -- then you'll know wonga.

and it's a bit harsh to just say "oh well why did you do it?", i mean, if you have a shitty day at work with your co-workers do you appreciate it if someone just tell you "oh well, why do you work in an office then???"

how much money they earn for it isn't really that much of an issue (especially if it's working out as £36,000 pro-rata, i mean, gosh.)

But I don't understand how anyone could be anything but sympathetic towards people in this position, call them "not entirely innocent" or "greedy".

If someone is prepared to endanger their health for a few hundred pounds then I think it's a shame that they are in that position.

Two of my doctors are recommending one, as my current treatment is losing effectiveness. But there's time to drop it before it hurts me further, if necessary.

there's time to drop it before it hurts me further

that is some cold-blooded phrasing. I'm sorry about your harsh reality, morbs.