Lottery: maybe. Science: occasionally [PK / PD]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2015-01-13 17:45 (3831 d 00:13 ago) – Posting: # 14281
Views: 9,626

Hi Hötzi,


❝ I’m eager to learn what the PKWP’s “justification“ was. To my knowledge not a single [sic] paper demonstrating its “merits” is published yet. Science? Gimme a break.


Diplomatic as usual. :-D
I think regulators are sitting on much more comprehensive info than just the papers that are occasionally published. In fairness, sometimes regulators know stuff you and I don't, and the guideline could simply be a consequence of that.
But in such cases it would be really prudent of the agency to publish comments and some useful degree of justification, and not just resorting to either not publishing comments and justification at all, or publishing argumentation that is conveniently vague sentences referring to reviews of the current scientific knowledge incl. study reports available to agencies etc.

We'll see....... or perhaps we won't.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,429 posts in 4,930 threads, 1,679 registered users;
64 visitors (0 registered, 64 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 18:59 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

To know that we know what we know,
and to know that we do not know what we do not know,
that is true knowledge.    Nicolaus Copernicus

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5