Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
You republicans always resort to force. ;-)
Typically, medical test subjects are willing to participate and paid for their efforts. This would need to be a fairly longitudinal study, you'd probably need to offer ongoing medical support to the subjects who contract HIV (because you could have spared them but didn't or something), and educate them about not taking risks they wouldn't be taking if they weren't in the study. It could all be done inside the guidelines for medical studies on human subjects.
|
In this case there wouldn't be any compensation or the like unless the drug caused more aids infections.
This wouldn't need to be done in a double blind kinda way. You would be looking at those who take it the pills vrs those who didn't (everyone else in that risk group) and see if there was a statistically significant change in transmission rates.
I wouldn't call this very 'good' in terms of proving effectiveness but you can get very large sample sizes which help overcome some of its many short comings.
As a side note, in the US we tend to outsource all of our human research to nations with socialized medicine programs since leftist governments are more willing to do things for the 'good of the people' at the expense of the individual
Sweden is the one most commonly used due to their socialized medical system and their very homogeneous gene pool.