But your description just seems to be describing a poor study design. If the working drug does not perform statistically-significantly better than the placebo, how does the study show it’s a working drug? In other words, how would the study’s results have been different if it were a non-working drug?
Would you agree that the study didn’t prove the effectiveness of the drug (which may very well work, as you say)? If the drug really does work, and yet the study did not show that, it sounds like a better study should have been done.
So it sounds like you’re saying there is no value in placebo-controlled studies. So why do you think they remain? Just historical red-tape that everyone has to jump through?
