03 Apr '13 19:32>
Originally posted by Ponderable"2) If a new medicine were developed that would cure arthritis but cause a fatal reaction in 1% of those who took it, would you want it to be released to the public?
So we do have a mixture of question, some of which are a bit funny, most of which are morla-loaded.
We had one serious reply. So why not have a real long post?
1) Would you be willing to spend a night alone in a remote house that is supposedly haunted, just for the sake of it? (knowing nothing more about the history of the house than that) There is ...[text shortened]... but were it to fail then everyone would die. Which would you choose?
The actual question is: How much side effect do we accept in medicine?
- As long as people know about the effects: no problem.
- Life is too precious and arthritis a comparatively "light" illness. People have to be saved from gambling their life.
- We should do more research to find out what the 1%-issue is about, so we can either prevent people who would be affected or find a formulation which is also non-lethal to them."
I think you may be underestimating how much pain and debilitation arthritic can cause. I think of it this way -- how bad would my arthritis need to be before I would be willing to take a drug that would either totally cure it without side effects with .99 probability, or kill me painlessly with .01 probability. It's not a slam dunk.