Suresh Muthukumaraswamy
@sdmuthu.bsky.social
Researcher at University of Auckland.
Ivory tower inhabitant.
Views are mine.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=VU4GTNsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Ivory tower inhabitant.
Views are mine.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=VU4GTNsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
Fair enough. You’ll note that I wrote that “as a clinical trialist” I wasn’t sorry to see it go. “As a consumer” you are right I am worse off now. We all have many hats we can don ….
December 12, 2024 at 5:23 AM
Fair enough. You’ll note that I wrote that “as a clinical trialist” I wasn’t sorry to see it go. “As a consumer” you are right I am worse off now. We all have many hats we can don ….
I did but nothing changed in my area so I gave up. Also I had deep concern that the loads more regulation it would have introduced is only as useful as the funding that is put into the regulatory system itself… case in point is the the current slashing of the public service.
December 12, 2024 at 4:53 AM
I did but nothing changed in my area so I gave up. Also I had deep concern that the loads more regulation it would have introduced is only as useful as the funding that is put into the regulatory system itself… case in point is the the current slashing of the public service.
I’m extremely curious to see more details on this one …
December 12, 2024 at 12:26 AM
I’m extremely curious to see more details on this one …
There is that. The administrative overhead of doing lab /compliance paperwork across 20 sites would be a pain in the balls. I barely have the patience to do it for a single site 😂.
December 5, 2024 at 6:13 PM
There is that. The administrative overhead of doing lab /compliance paperwork across 20 sites would be a pain in the balls. I barely have the patience to do it for a single site 😂.
Yeh this struck me as weird as well and I think is intentional and perhaps reflects a negativity bias.
Also hallucinogen is a bit of a weird one. More often than not they are “Pseudo-hallucinogens” as it’s much rarer for the person to actually believe the “hallucinations” are actually real …
Also hallucinogen is a bit of a weird one. More often than not they are “Pseudo-hallucinogens” as it’s much rarer for the person to actually believe the “hallucinations” are actually real …
December 5, 2024 at 6:10 PM
Yeh this struck me as weird as well and I think is intentional and perhaps reflects a negativity bias.
Also hallucinogen is a bit of a weird one. More often than not they are “Pseudo-hallucinogens” as it’s much rarer for the person to actually believe the “hallucinations” are actually real …
Also hallucinogen is a bit of a weird one. More often than not they are “Pseudo-hallucinogens” as it’s much rarer for the person to actually believe the “hallucinations” are actually real …
Difficult to believe it was costs. I know stuff is expensive in the States but a blood panel here (CNC/LFT/Renal/Thyroid) costs me less than the equivalent of $100 US pp. Scales (DEQ) etc basically free.
December 5, 2024 at 6:01 PM
Difficult to believe it was costs. I know stuff is expensive in the States but a blood panel here (CNC/LFT/Renal/Thyroid) costs me less than the equivalent of $100 US pp. Scales (DEQ) etc basically free.
Following in the footsteps of lanicemine (AZD6765) and memantine (and PCN-101) as it were ….
December 4, 2024 at 7:18 PM
Following in the footsteps of lanicemine (AZD6765) and memantine (and PCN-101) as it were ….
Can you elaborate? 🙏
December 4, 2024 at 5:44 PM
Can you elaborate? 🙏
Yes that is interesting. A lot to think about there.
November 30, 2024 at 9:33 AM
Yes that is interesting. A lot to think about there.
Honestly I’m still grappling/learning about this type of research. I’m just interested to find out more and muse.
November 30, 2024 at 9:32 AM
Honestly I’m still grappling/learning about this type of research. I’m just interested to find out more and muse.
I would be concerned that since the trials can’t be blinded that the estimands can’t uniquely identify treatment effects from placebo/expectancy effects.
The same theoretical issue applies to psychopharmacology and psychotherapy trials but the latter seems to get a pass. I don’t understand why.
The same theoretical issue applies to psychopharmacology and psychotherapy trials but the latter seems to get a pass. I don’t understand why.
November 30, 2024 at 8:25 AM
I would be concerned that since the trials can’t be blinded that the estimands can’t uniquely identify treatment effects from placebo/expectancy effects.
The same theoretical issue applies to psychopharmacology and psychotherapy trials but the latter seems to get a pass. I don’t understand why.
The same theoretical issue applies to psychopharmacology and psychotherapy trials but the latter seems to get a pass. I don’t understand why.
Awesome thanks -- will read :D
November 30, 2024 at 6:02 AM
Awesome thanks -- will read :D
Ok fair. I'm curious Do people ever try to do the equivalent of a dose/exposure response study as we do in pharmacology ? For example, in this case you could time limit App time in this case.....
November 30, 2024 at 5:55 AM
Ok fair. I'm curious Do people ever try to do the equivalent of a dose/exposure response study as we do in pharmacology ? For example, in this case you could time limit App time in this case.....