[Link]
I've had some training in research and experiment design, so I have a different perspective than Owlet and The Soulful Ginger. Unless drugs and treatments go through randomized, experimental human testing, researchers are never sure whether the drug or treatment is actually having any effect.
From the news stories I've read, the American aid workers who contracted Ebola were given an experimental serum and shortly after their conditions improved markedly. But who's to say that the improvement wasn't caused by some other medication they were taking, or the food they ate, or the fact that they'd just woken up from a nap, or a change in the humidity and ambient temperature in their hospital room, or any number of other reasons, and not the serum? The point of the large and randomized studies that the FDA requires drugs to undergo is to allow us to be reasonably certain that any improvements the drugs might cause is actually due to the drug itself.
The questioner asked whether drugs for fatal diseases should be held to the same standards as less-fatal diseases. I think yes, because the stakes are higher. I understand the desire to save lives and alleviate suffering, but we should be sure that the medications and treatments are safe and effective before we start using them widely.
#78661: Experimental drugs
Moderator: Marduk