Science

12963 readers

12 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Space

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Flawed, scandalous trials tank FDA expert support for MDMA therapy (arstechnica.com)

submitted 3 months ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/science@beehaw.org

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Run trials with an astounding number of easily avoidable flaws, win stupid prizes. It would be a shame for this to turn into an overall setback for psychedelic therapy.

Sure, the FDA could go against the recommendation, but that's a political nonstarter given the problems included sexual assault. We need studies that are unassailable on the data collection such that the psychoactive (qualitative) effects are just an outlier in the list of quantitative results.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

So how are you supposed to be able to double-blind a study involving MDMA? It seems essentially impossible, which makes it inevitable that this will always happen at every review, no?

Why is double-blinding so important in this specific instance to the point that it's best that the buck stops here?

Seems like an easy way to kill momentum of a life-saving mental health treatment because it's politically inconvenient (and maybe endangers existing pharmaceutical products?).

[–] cows_are_underrated@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 months ago

I have no fucking clue how you're supposed to double blind it. Obviously the patients will realise if theyve been giving MDMA.