That is a false statement. Yes, statistics is good, but it's only empirical or secondary data. It doesn't explain why or how a drug works and why or how it is good/bad, toxic/helpful and so on. Such data is only worth anything if it's used to prove/challenge an assessment or if we can't come up with a better explanation for the effects of a drug; it gives us data to go off, but it's only suggestive at best. It's like an NSAID used in a fever - it does alleviate the symptoms, but it doesn't treat the root of the problem. Statistics is just that. Chemistry (or pharmacology) tries to explain the "root cause". The advantage of a thorough chemistry+pharmacology knowledge (which humanity lacks right now for the most part) is the possibility of extrapolation - you can predict effects, dosages, side effects, toxicity (and the reason!); basically anything given the knowledge is thorough enough.
We rely so much on statistics in this field because we don't know much, like you said, about the way brain works and how chemicals affect it. In an ideal world, though, statistics would be secondary - a proof of some kind to assert our understanding.
I don't understand how a hypothetical greater understanding of natural science in the future bears on understanding drugs in the present. We're not talking about an "ideal world"? This guy wants current knowledge.
Statistics don't prove things. Rather, they bear on likelihood. As for why/how a chemical works in terms of its utility, it's our best tool. There are at least thousands of potential pharmaceuticals created regularly. Only a few even make it past early trials. If history is a teacher, then the reality is that we come across useful drugs by chance. Corporations with loads of resources, try as they might to design a useful pharmaceutical based on our knowledge of the natural sciences, by-and-large just happen upon something that works.
^ Agreed. Statistical methods are great tools that help us to evaluate data and pick out trends from complex data. But statistics are not experimental methods that collect data.
I'm unclear what you're saying here. They evaluate data but don't collect them? The experimental method was literally born out of the principles of statistics.
Observing correlations is good, but it doesn't give you much information on what is happening at a molecular level, which I think is what the OP is trying to become more knowledgeable about. Yeah, of course stats is very helpful in determining whether a new treatment is better than placebo by hypothesis testing etc and indeed it is needed within drug design for QSAR etc, but chemistry and cell biology is really a lot more important I'd say.
Creating a correlation is just one (elementary) method of statistics.
How can it be more important if it doesn't tell us as much?
dopamimetic,
I agree that statistics are subject to bias. That's why there are peer-reviewers. No one said it's perfect.
So I'm supposed to believe that because "No drug will have the exact same effects for every human being", that statistics is less meaningful than biology/chemistry/physics, which hardly begins to explain even the general effects of drugs on any human being?
No one said that medications can't affect people differently and in fact I think it strengthens my position. We can determine approximate probabilities of experiencing various side-effects of a medication based on behavior.
Yes I do think that trials tend to include healthy, white, young males. However, we never really know how well a given medication works until it's out on the market, during which time usually there are further trials. As for explaining how a drug works in the brain, and how that corresponds to behavior, we're more clueless than most psychiatrist is willing to admit.
Basically my response to you guys comes down to this: you can pick holes in statistics, but it's by far the best way we have. If you argue that it's not perfect, you're missing the point. If you still are wedded to the fact that only hard sciences can presently, accurately determine how a drug works, give me a reason that doesn't mistake my position as to why it's better. Honestly what I'm hearing is "it's not perfect, so it's not as good".
8(
and finally stop putting that enormous efforts into hindering interested, intelligent people to just evolve and do what they want (as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, as always)
