4 ms·
Yes, but if you continue reading the start of the very next paragraph addresses this. >The trial was far too small to be conclusive, >said Dr. Gasser, whose c
by mgr86 13y ago
Yes, but if you continue reading the start of the very next paragraph addresses this.
>The trial was far too small to be conclusive,
>said Dr. Gasser, whose co-authors include Dr. Doblin,
>Dominique Holstein of UniversityHospital Zurich and Rudolf
>Brenneisen of the University of Bern.
they go on to say that
>“It’s a proof of concept,” Dr. Doblin said.
>“It shows that this kind of trial can be done safely, and >that it’s very much worth doing.”
--
which is important. This sort of research all but halted in the mid-60s. In fact, the reason LSD even made it into popular culture can be a credited to the fact that many who tried it in clinical trials liked it enough to take it home a share. Of course, that is a bit of a dump down version, but not too far from the truth.
- lutusp 13y ago> Yes, but if you continue reading the start of the very next paragraph addresses this. "The trial was far too small to be conclusive ..." Yes, and it's somewhat discouraging to see how rarely these appropriate caveats never get into either the headlines or the mind of the public. >“It’s a proof of concept,” Dr. Doblin said. >“It shows that this kind of trial can be done safely, and >that it’s very much worth doing.” That exactly what has not been demonstrated. A 20% change is not statistically significant in a test group of this size even if there had been a control group, and the placebo effect has not been controlled for. That's why I posted as I did -- it's junk science. Again, LSD might be a breakthrough in therapy, unfortunately this study doesn't contribute to our scientific understanding.