Search results

From several occurrences of this, what I have noticed is that it comes from surveys, discussions or working groups where patients express that they are indifferent to the nature of treatments that work, as long as they work, which is then interpreted as them wanting holistic rubbish, without the...

Ugh. Not enough good data points. The tapering clearly happens much earlier than this, and now there is a flawed citation in the literature. It's absurd how data on this have been just as bad in terms of quantity as quality. Why would they need to be tailored? Nobody suffering from this wants...

Pretty ironic to link to a Greenhalgh paper as the first reference. The bigger question is: why isn't it? It obviously already should be. There is obviously something very wrong going on with this, and it clearly points to failing institutions that are not fulfilling their roles, aren't acting...

Obviously if you filter almost all of them out because they are of such abysmal quality, that only leaves a few, but then it makes that statement very dishonest. Wow is the abstract overall deceitful, though. It's so hard to reconcile this with this being the work of professionals. Their...

"Treatment options are limited", so let's compare the same junk that's been trialled hundreds of times, which itself has been trialled many times? Yeah, makes sense when you don't think about it. It's like a worse version of "there are n protocols for x, let's make another one, now there are n+1...

Completely bizarre to misrepresent prior health issues as "health seeking" involving "both (sic) biological, psychological and social factors". Obviously it's totally bizarre for people with health problem to seek health care, and it cannot possibly be prior health problems. Especially for...

All you have to do to reduce costs is to only do the easy tasks, especially if all you do with the easy tasks is to block anything else from being done. Just like if you feed people less, you will save on food. If you feed them less than they need to survive, you will save even more on food. Why...

This is something medicine massively struggles with, and it's exemplified by the common framing of how "X's life changed the day they got a diagnosis of Y". No, X's life changed the day they got Y, the diagnosis is not the beginning of the problem, it's only relevant in what it means socially...

Those are very low doses. Even 100 mg is a low dose. This is micro-dosing, even 100 mg barely reaches the threshold for awareness of having taken it. The benefits are usually reported at much higher doses, 2-3g or more. Plus using synthetic psylocybin is not necessarily equivalent. Not really...

No, it's not changing anywhere, and it's not shifting in part because every time this is brought up someone lies about things changing, but they never actually do. Then years pass and it just continues same as ever. Adversarial health care is the root cause, the dual role of defense...

Aside from the "patients want a holistic approach", when they definitely mean something else entirely, this is acceptable. It's the bare minimum that could have been a starting point many years ago, long before LC was a thing, so the bar is very low, but at least it gets many basic details...

Also relevant to the current fashion in biopsychosocial circles to attribute a lot of things to 'prediction coding' and 'classical conditioning' simply because it has gained pseudoscientific legitimacy: *Taps sign* All models are wrong, some are useful, psychosomatic models might be the most...

For some reason this got a lot of attention on the /r/science sub-reddit yesterday, heavily up-voted (93% positive), and although most of the main comments are pretty scathing, many are just generic "well, yeah".

So weak that by comparison water is extra spicy. I don't know what they refer to by such "psychotherapeutic approaches" being 'approved'. There is no such approval process. Doing a bunch of small, biased pilot trials, summing up a few of them in 'systematic' reviews, then asserting it's good...

This actually makes a lot of sense and doesn't surprise me, a lot of similar myths actually come from popular culture. A pattern has been revealed in recent decades about how many of those 'foundational' stories were completely made-up after the fact (even Sacks), and they only hold up because...

Sounds exactly like the RECOVER debacle. No one in the institution wants to do it, they have to anyway, they will botch it, it will lead nowhere, and likely use it to refuse to do anything more in the future because they spent all of it for nothing, and it won't matter that it will be their...

If 16 isn't enough, why would 17 be? Or 25? Do we stop at 100? 200? There have already been way more than 16, but most of them are such garbage they aren't even worth reviewing by people who badly want it to be true. That fact alone is damning. Having this little to show for it after all this...

Ah but when they examine records and look at statistics based on those records they can happily report that there is no such problem so this clearly can't be true. It's also kind of funny how decades into continuously growing mental health awareness, budgets and interventions it keeps getting...

They can be plant-based, although I don't know if they are fully equivalent. I tried some and all I remember is a bit of minty taste, which could be added to the control pill. But it's really funny how all of this goes away the minute it's about something that can't be blinded, then it doesn't...

I don't think the word 'predictor' is correct here, but what the hell do I know with my linear conception of time and my insistence that events that happen after cannot be their own cause? Yeah this is what happens when you simply don't consider things like the linear concept of time and use...