Why is there so little human data on most of these?

AskingForClarityResearch AssociateCommunity Seed

Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one. If some of these compounds have been known about for decades, why has nobody run a proper trial?

5 replies5 upvotesBeginner Questions

5 replies

  • unconvinced_stillAnalystCommunity Seed

    Several reasons and they're not the same kind of reason.

    Money — phase 3 costs an enormous amount. Patentability — many of these are old or naturally derived. Regulatory pathway — you need a defined indication. "General wellbeing" isn't a target. And some were tried and went nowhere. That's the one people forget.

    10 upvotes

    • AdminSenior Analyst

      if pharma companies are not going to end up making money from it they wont waste their time

      2 upvotes

  • AskingForClarityResearch AssociateCommunity Seed

    The fourth is the one I hadn't considered.

    4 upvotes

  • PhaseTwoWatcherAnalystCommunity Seed

    Registries help a bit — you can sometimes see something registered and never reported.

    6 upvotes

  • SteelmanItAnalystCommunity Seed

    Worth holding both: the funding explanation is real and it's also used as an unfalsifiable shield. "It would work if anyone tested it" can't be argued with, which is what makes it weak.

    5 upvotes

Join the discussion — reply to this thread or start your own.

Open in Community Q&A

Community discussions are educational and cover published research. Nothing here is individualised medical advice. Community guidelines