If only programs like this could be conducted by dispassionate scientists, out of the spotlight, and without the financial angle and the incentive to produce results that investors expect.
When I see a project being promoted by a list of famous, influential investors, instead of the refereed results of extensive and carefully controlled clinical trials, I'm reminded how often this sort of project conceals more than it reveals:
Unfortunately, there are certain area of science where there are unexamined biases. Stray too close to there, and they are automatically dismissed as crackpot.
In science, evidence trumps eminence, unless it is something like cold fusion.
If we can measure this "crackpot bias", I am not sure psychedelic research would have as high of a bias as cold fusion, but it might have been closer say, ten or twenty years ago. No one wanted to touch that stuff or could get grants to do such research.
> If we can measure this "crackpot bias", I am not sure psychedelic research would have as high of a bias as cold fusion ...
Yep. For things like cold fusion, wishful thinking reigns, but for anything health-related, desperation reigns. Neither produces any kind of desirable science, the kind that's curious without being passionate for a particular outcome.
I brought up cold fusion as a great example. There are some very interesting research out there that are fighting against this very bias you are demonstrating right now. Is there wishful thinking? Sure, but perhaps not among some of the serious efforts going on.
"for anything health-related, desperation reigns" <-- That sounds like a clever, truthful statement, but it's nothing more than a blanket statement that also demonstrates this bias I spoke of. Are there desperate people? Yes, quite a number of them. Is what Tim Ferris doing a result from desperation? I doubt it. Are there people who will unthinkingly fund this because of Tim Ferris's fame? Sure. Are there people who are open-minded though skeptical and curious about what Tim Ferris is doing? Sure. So what's the problem here?
It'll be due to the social stigma will experimenting with psychedelics. It's more permissible to try 'last chance' therapies with people who are dying from cancer.
I'm very happy to see this. I've seen people with serious depression issues be completely turned around by a single dose of psilocybin. I'm not sure I would have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, but I'm hoping that these studies will become more common and hopefully the efficacy of these treatments will prove out.
This is cool but I would have liked to see something in the description about why crowdfunding is needed when the fundraising target is pocket change for 1) any of the listed "public supporters", 2) Johns Hopkins. Surely the incentive is there for any of these parties to want to attach their name to such ground breaking research.
If part of the purpose is "show the public that they can contribute to science through crowdfunding", then that is legit and they should make it clear. Or maybe it's too controversial for JHU or NIH to fund, etc.
edit: additionally, a better explanation of what the funds will be used for would set a good precedent.
This pilot study will enroll up to 6 individuals with
treatment-resistant depression (at least 2 failed
attempts at an anti-depressant treatment) who are judged
by a physician to be appropriate for the study and who
remain under outpatient supervision for the duration of
the study.
Through observation and personal experience, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of depression has its basis in physical conditions -- the state of (the rest of) one's body, and/or of one's environment. And really, environmental causes become intractable when they produce corresponding physical changes in the subject. (Including, but not only, the brain.)
So, until physical health and environment become center stage, "the problem" of depression will continue, with at best various palliative treatments -- too often touted as "the cure" -- slapped on to ameliorate, or bury, some measure of the symptoms including "depression".
I'm not saying this is 100% the case. But I've seen too much of the extreme opposite end, where diagnosis and treatment are rather divorced from the physical circumstances.
Even these days, the "industry" seems to be heavily populated with... [oh, redacted, I guess].
P.S. Regarding psilocybin, which the OP endeavor is apparently focusing on, perhaps again my experience is an anomaly, but many of my drug-taking friends from my younger years seem to have ended up happier and more "successful", in a personal sense, in life.
Having been more than sufficiently scared/indoctrinated in my early years, I avoided drugs. Looking around me, I now more than occasionally regret that. Maybe a little self-medication and experimentation would have led to some different choices at critical junctures that I now see, in retrospect.
Granted, drugs do destroy some people. And, given current circumstances, societies. I don't mean to make light of that.
But the often hypocritical, "just say no" fear-based inter-generational culture that has predominated in my part of the world, with respect to this topic? Not productive.
Hell, aside from the personal side, we've lost -- delayed for decades -- research into psilocybin and marijuana, that earlier showed signs of promise and now are proving to be quick fruitful areas of pharmacological development.
P.P.S. Maybe this is the wrong message to share. And even with my current wondering, I have -- retrospectively, I guess -- no desire to become, or have become, a habitual user.
My primary point, I guess, must return to the personal and the anecdotal. I've had my ups and downs, but I always used to bounce back -- until some physical injuries led to chronic discomfort and limitations on my activities. That marked the start of extended dark times, and a gradual but relentless downward spiral including further, reinforcing physical health developments.
Guard your health! Your first and best line of defense -- or offense, to put it perhaps in a less fearful term.
That includes guarding it by using it for positive experiences. They tend to be self-reinforcing -- just as the negative are, in the opposite direction.
> In 2001, Ferriss founded BrainQUICKEN, an online nutritional supplements company which made a product that was marketed as both BodyQuick and Brain Quicken.[22] It was claimed that this product would dramatically increase short term memory and reaction speed, taking effect within 60 minutes, but these claims made about this combination of ingredients have never been scientifically validated
> Notable works: The 4-Hour Workweek, The 4-Hour Body, The 4-Hour Chef
> his campaigns, such as dedicating his birthday to raising funds and heading LitLiberation to increase literacy worldwide
> The New Yorker Magazine described Ferriss as "this generation's self help guru"
He has his flaws but at the end of the day he seems to be genuinely trying to do his part in making the world better. Just remember, some of his biggest leverage points in this task are his marketing skills.
I take him seriously. The slow carb diet from 4 Hour Body has had a huge impact on how I eat. It works and has helped 1000's of people improve their lives.
It makes me sad to see this comment here. This is precisely how pseudoscience sells and proliferates: subjective attribution of all success to the hyped bunk.
Quirk diets work because adherents accidentally get the calorie balance in the right direction by limiting/changing dietary habits. It's not the quirk, which might maybe contribute a tiny effect if it's not entirely bogus in principle. Yet people hail, "The diet works! The guru was right! All hail the Guru!"
Ask and you'll hear the exact same refrain for homeopathy, acupuncture, rhino horn powder, shark fin soup, albino body parts, ...
Yes, and well put too.
Evidence seems to suggest that the placebo effect can occur even for those who know they're getting a placebo (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effec... methinks some 'conscious placebo' product could really help people without deluding them...
Thank you. This is interesting science, but any study backed by someone who has a history of selling pseudo-science is going to be a setback, not a step forward for scientific research.
Probably disappointing if you get the placebo. On a more serious point if they use a sugar pill as a placebo it's going to make it pretty obvious to the subjects who got the real stuff and who didn't thus rendering the results iffy. Maybe they should use something like Citalopram as the placebo.
"The compound CGP3466B, already proven nontoxic for people, may effectively and rapidly treat depression, according to results of a study in mice.... it may work in patients who are unresponsive to other types of drugs and it lays the foundation for the development of a new class of fast-acting antidepressants that target the same network."
You can grow that funny helping fungi yourself. And in Sweden for example they just grow in the forest, although tropical varieties are much more potent.
I don't think using a placebo is sufficient in a study like this.
I'd like to see another psychedelic used as a control, not just a placebo. Subjects are going to "know" when they've received psilocybin and then they're going to be likely to "perform" better when evaluated for depression.
28 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 48.5 ms ] threadWhen I see a project being promoted by a list of famous, influential investors, instead of the refereed results of extensive and carefully controlled clinical trials, I'm reminded how often this sort of project conceals more than it reveals:
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-f...
Let's all remember that, in science, evidence trumps eminence -- or it should.
In science, evidence trumps eminence, unless it is something like cold fusion.
If we can measure this "crackpot bias", I am not sure psychedelic research would have as high of a bias as cold fusion, but it might have been closer say, ten or twenty years ago. No one wanted to touch that stuff or could get grants to do such research.
Yep. For things like cold fusion, wishful thinking reigns, but for anything health-related, desperation reigns. Neither produces any kind of desirable science, the kind that's curious without being passionate for a particular outcome.
"for anything health-related, desperation reigns" <-- That sounds like a clever, truthful statement, but it's nothing more than a blanket statement that also demonstrates this bias I spoke of. Are there desperate people? Yes, quite a number of them. Is what Tim Ferris doing a result from desperation? I doubt it. Are there people who will unthinkingly fund this because of Tim Ferris's fame? Sure. Are there people who are open-minded though skeptical and curious about what Tim Ferris is doing? Sure. So what's the problem here?
If part of the purpose is "show the public that they can contribute to science through crowdfunding", then that is legit and they should make it clear. Or maybe it's too controversial for JHU or NIH to fund, etc.
edit: additionally, a better explanation of what the funds will be used for would set a good precedent.
It was a nightmare for the lead researcher to get everything done.
80K actually seems like too little to me.
So, until physical health and environment become center stage, "the problem" of depression will continue, with at best various palliative treatments -- too often touted as "the cure" -- slapped on to ameliorate, or bury, some measure of the symptoms including "depression".
I'm not saying this is 100% the case. But I've seen too much of the extreme opposite end, where diagnosis and treatment are rather divorced from the physical circumstances.
Even these days, the "industry" seems to be heavily populated with... [oh, redacted, I guess].
P.S. Regarding psilocybin, which the OP endeavor is apparently focusing on, perhaps again my experience is an anomaly, but many of my drug-taking friends from my younger years seem to have ended up happier and more "successful", in a personal sense, in life.
Having been more than sufficiently scared/indoctrinated in my early years, I avoided drugs. Looking around me, I now more than occasionally regret that. Maybe a little self-medication and experimentation would have led to some different choices at critical junctures that I now see, in retrospect.
Granted, drugs do destroy some people. And, given current circumstances, societies. I don't mean to make light of that.
But the often hypocritical, "just say no" fear-based inter-generational culture that has predominated in my part of the world, with respect to this topic? Not productive.
Hell, aside from the personal side, we've lost -- delayed for decades -- research into psilocybin and marijuana, that earlier showed signs of promise and now are proving to be quick fruitful areas of pharmacological development.
P.P.S. Maybe this is the wrong message to share. And even with my current wondering, I have -- retrospectively, I guess -- no desire to become, or have become, a habitual user.
My primary point, I guess, must return to the personal and the anecdotal. I've had my ups and downs, but I always used to bounce back -- until some physical injuries led to chronic discomfort and limitations on my activities. That marked the start of extended dark times, and a gradual but relentless downward spiral including further, reinforcing physical health developments.
Guard your health! Your first and best line of defense -- or offense, to put it perhaps in a less fearful term.
That includes guarding it by using it for positive experiences. They tend to be self-reinforcing -- just as the negative are, in the opposite direction.
Highlights from his wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ferriss):
> In 2001, Ferriss founded BrainQUICKEN, an online nutritional supplements company which made a product that was marketed as both BodyQuick and Brain Quicken.[22] It was claimed that this product would dramatically increase short term memory and reaction speed, taking effect within 60 minutes, but these claims made about this combination of ingredients have never been scientifically validated
> Notable works: The 4-Hour Workweek, The 4-Hour Body, The 4-Hour Chef
> his campaigns, such as dedicating his birthday to raising funds and heading LitLiberation to increase literacy worldwide
> The New Yorker Magazine described Ferriss as "this generation's self help guru"
EDIT: all these downvotes! How doesn't he remind you of this guy?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg29TuWo0Yo
Quirk diets work because adherents accidentally get the calorie balance in the right direction by limiting/changing dietary habits. It's not the quirk, which might maybe contribute a tiny effect if it's not entirely bogus in principle. Yet people hail, "The diet works! The guru was right! All hail the Guru!"
Ask and you'll hear the exact same refrain for homeopathy, acupuncture, rhino horn powder, shark fin soup, albino body parts, ...
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_type_...
"The compound CGP3466B, already proven nontoxic for people, may effectively and rapidly treat depression, according to results of a study in mice.... it may work in patients who are unresponsive to other types of drugs and it lays the foundation for the development of a new class of fast-acting antidepressants that target the same network."
I'd like to see another psychedelic used as a control, not just a placebo. Subjects are going to "know" when they've received psilocybin and then they're going to be likely to "perform" better when evaluated for depression.
At least that would be my hypothesis.