rand_alpha19

It can’t! It’s too busy doing 500 km of burn-in after making it through testing. :(

Never join a robotics startup, lol. You will have to go to standup and it will be useless and annoying basically every time.

Yeah, for some reason I find this hard to read. I think it might be the lack of contrast between the fonts? Could be fixable by adjusting the weight instead of totally changing the font, though. (I would change the handwritten-looking one just because I find it kind of ugly.)

Just as a comparison, that’s about on par with the annual salary of some of the really big athletes in the NBA. LeBron James will earn just under $50 million this season.

The original photo seems to be of a magician named Ted Schwank.

Yeah, I understand that. But if there’s a measurable difference between the efficacy of the 2 pills that even the patient is obviously aware of, why does that warrant extreme caution versus another pill that doesn’t have this effect?

Like why is it better to have a study in which the patient literally can’t tell the difference between treatments? Why is it not detrimental for a federal agency to unilaterally dismiss this?

I understand that people online aren’t obligated to engage with me thoughtfully, but I was hoping for an actual explanation that is longer than 50 words from someone who is more knowledgeable than me regarding the validity of scientific experiments as they relate to pharmaceuticals.

But why is that such a problem that it’s worth rejecting what is otherwise widely considered an effective treatment?

I am fundamentally not understanding the inherent risk to patients resulting from the structure of the study that is apparently so harmful that it must not continue.

Why is being able to tell that your medication is working a negative thing in a study? And such a negative thing that it apparently negates all other positive aspects of the medication.

So, let’s just use an example of a pill that treats headaches so I can understand, because I’m kinda stupid.

It works super well, and most patients taking it in double blind trials find it relieves headache pain considerably. Why is it a bad thing, to the point of rejecting it as a treatment, that the patient feels that the pill is working very well and has concluded on their own that this is probably not a placebo?

I can understand a patient being misled by coincidence, but surely a measurable, verifiable, and repeatable benefit to the patient compared to pills without medicinal ingredients would warrant a different conclusion, wouldn’t it?

In your coma scenario, I’m sure there is a statistical analysis that can be performed to show with a degree of certainty that a specific medication has a higher likelihood of being effective than a placebo in a controlled experiment.

I commented on this same story a while ago when it first broke that it was likely to be rejected and I don’t think anyone explained it in the thread.

It makes sense to withhold an endorsement to see if she’ll try to legitimately court progressives with substantive policy. I really don’t think she will but it’s worth a shot. Bernie’s old and his time in politics is coming to a close, but he knows how to be the squeaky wheel and make moves.

Yeah, NBA League Pass doesn’t work on Linux either, they partnered with Microsoft to implement their new DRM and made the decision not to support Linux. I assume this is also the case here.

The only way to get around it is to use a virtual machine, which is silly.

That sounds like a fucking nightmare. I had to troubleshoot poorly-written-yet-somehow-functional GOTOs a lot when I was a BAS technician and that’s annoying enough.

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?).