Public Address | Cafe | Hard News: Psychedelic science: Microdosing and more

Russell Brown

Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:57:38 +1200

I caught up with Suresh last week and he has just finished a funding proposal for a follow-up study involving only women. He was still quite clear that it was going to be too difficult to design the first one for both men and women.

I would think the cohort…

Lucy Telfar Barnard

Tue, 26 May 2020 15:29:02 +1200

If the effects are generally weaker in men than in women (which is plausible simply on the basis of dose per body mass) a male-only pilot study could well conclude, wrongly, that there is nothing to see.

Quite – or even if the dose is done on a per kg…

Lucy Telfar Barnard

Tue, 26 May 2020 15:27:23 +1200

When you’re designing the initial stage of a six week course in which you’re not sure you’ll even detect measurable results, it makes sense to choose candidates most likely to hopefully register on the scale.

Sure – but they make no mention of any reason to suspect that men would…

linger

Mon, 25 May 2020 14:55:47 +1200

The point being that in a much larger sample and/or a longer timeframe, hormonal cycle effects should reduce to random noise, but there isn't yet the evidence to justify that sample size?
Even so, this is not ideal. If the effects are generally weaker in men than in women (which…

Alfie

Sun, 24 May 2020 15:38:32 +1200

I see this as a sort of pre-study proof-of-concept. When you're designing the initial stage of a six week course in which you're not sure you'll even detect measurable results, it makes sense to choose candidates most likely to hopefully register on the scale. Not as any sort of representative…

Lucy Telfar Barnard

Sun, 24 May 2020 08:25:19 +1200

Yes really. If they're worried about menstrual cycles, why is the default men rather than non-menstruating women?
I don't have an issue with their logic on the menstrual cycle affecting results. I have an issue with excluding women on the basis of menstruation when plenty of women in their target…

Rob Stowell

Sat, 23 May 2020 22:52:49 +1200

Get them back next year! Things moving it seems, and good to know NZ is involved.

Russell Brown

Fri, 22 May 2020 08:21:02 +1200

Really? It’s the first stage of a study in which they’re not yet sure they’ll see an effect at all. It surely makes sense to exclude any potential confounds. And they haven’t said “omg periodz” – one of the study team has a PhD thesis in relevant aspects of the…

Lucy Telfar Barnard

Thu, 21 May 2020 16:10:25 +1200

I got cross and stopped reading at the "we didn't include women becoz omg periodz" bit. Maybe I'll come back and read the rest later. Maybe I won't, because ffs.
If menstrual variations are a concern, there are plenty of women in the 25-65 age bracket (particularly at the upper…

Public Address

Thu, 21 May 2020 16:10:25 +1200

Discussion from blog post.