Sure, It’s a single case study so obviously take it with a grain of salt. Actual scientists understand this. People on social media don’t ands that’s annoying I get it.
On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field. A field mind you, that has made a little to no progress in decades. Arguments could be made they’ve made some errors and went down the wrong path. It’s a field that could probably use some new ideas.
> On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field
People in medicine or research have seen hundreds of extraordinary case reports like this. They’re everywhere on different topics and they’re not hard to get published.
They know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and it’s easy to see that this paper is completely devoid of evidence, just some extraordinary claims written in formal medical language, minus the usual process, methodology, and assessments one would expect in a paper like this.
Hey, fair enough. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, anything with psilocybin in the title tends to be a little more sensational. I find it very interesting though, I just listened to a recent Rogan podcast with Dr. Dean Radin, this exact case study came up because one of his companies is working a related product. Apparently they’ve developed a nasal delivery system that directly crosses into the brain, and the drug uses the same receptors as psilocybin but without the psychedelic effects. Apparently it has extraordinary positive effects on memory and lasts for months. They’ve tested on mice and chimpanzees, so real science is being done in this lane outside this case study. I guess I’m saying sometimes when “traditional” science gets stuck in the mud, we need creative & bold people who think outside the box to move things forward.
It’s a single case study so obviously take it with a grain of salt. On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field. A field mind you, that has made a little to no progress in decades. Arguments could be made they’ve made some errors and went down the wrong path. It’s a field that could probably use some new ideas.
> On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field
I responded to your other comment with this exact text, but to repeat:
This paper is not illuminating to people in the field. This is 3 unaffiliated people who paid to publish an anecdote without any supporting evidence. Paid medical journals are full of these.
Medical professionals know how to spot these claims because they’ve seen a hundred of them over the years that went nowhere. This was published not for the medical establishment, but for news media and social media and maybe to boost the author’s visibility to get funding for something they want to do.
This exact case study came up on a recent Rogan episode with Dean Radin, PhD. While the result is very interesting and perhaps illuminating about the unexpected biological mechanisms, apparently the effects were very short lived.
Even more interesting, Dr. Radin discussed one of his companies is working on a new drug that uses the same brain receptors as psilocybin, that has the potential to induce similar effects (with no psychedelic side effects) with a nasal delivery system that crosses directly into the brain. The benefit of that, he says, is the effect would last for much longer, months perhaps, and patients would only have to take it a few times per year.
I am immediately skeptical of anyone who goes on Rogan's show. Looking him up the guy has a PhD in education psychology, and his masters was in electrical engineering. I'm curious how much expertise he truly has on the subject and whether this was just spin for his company's work vs the natural option of psilocybin.
Not that I doubt the benefit of a non-psychoactive treatment. Just the adjacency of this idea to Rogan makes me immediately suspicious.
I’m a skeptical person to, you should be skeptical, it’s healthy! I just find guys like this super interesting and it was a really fun listen.
He talked about how his whole career he just followed whatever was most interesting to him at the time, hence the different disciplines. He also talked about programs he ran at universities where he was in charge of bringing different disciplines together & the challenges of that since academia is incredibly siloed. Departments don’t talk to each other.
So I think people like him are very valuable, since they aren’t afraid to think it if the box, work on taboo subjects like “psychic” abilities, and see the universe in novel ways.
He mentioned they’ve done trials in mice and chimpanzees with very positive results. I’m not saying it’s some crazy breakthrough or anything, but it’s interesting and something worth keeping an eye on. It sounded also like the killer feature is the nasal delivery tech. I don’t think the are the first ones to study non psychoactive psilocybin like compounds, but the nasal delivery that can cross into the brain directly seemed important.
The problem with this study though is that it doesn’t really illuminate anything. Psychedelics restoring the default mode network in the brain is already somewhat understood (*that it happens, not the mechanism of how), so it’s not that strange a temporary reversion of the symptoms of Alzheimer’s would happen.
And it’s not even suggestive of eg making an actual medicine that could be taken long term, because Alzheimer’s physically destroys your brain. The restorative effect of psychedelics is just a bandage over not understanding why that damage is happening in the first place.
What does "the effects were very short lived" mean in this context? If it's hours then it seems useless, but if it's months that is short for us normies that expect to live decades more, but for someone who is 90+ that's a pretty nice percentage that is absolutely acceptable if it just means repeating the treatment.
This is crackpot stuff - there's no scientific evidence of any of this, it's pure grifting. The individual cited above has a phd in educational psychology and runs a pseudoscience "institute"
Oh yeah? Go try Grok on “argumentative” mode and come back and tell me Claude is an a-hole. I forgot I was experimenting with the personalities and hadn’t used it in a while, then I picked it up again the other day and I was really confused. It’s so aggressive :)
No, they published their rules ahead of time. When you do that you can’t just go and make up new rules on the spot. That’s a central tenet of “the rule of law” that the rules are written down so we can interpret them.
My first Mac was the same white plastic one, I think it was called the iBook back then? Cost me the majority of my summer job earnings going into freshman year, but it was a great machine for me back then! I still have it in a box somewhere in the basement, might be fun pull it out and resurrect it :)
The white plastic Mac laptop, depending on the generation, was either called the iBook, or later the Macbook when they moved to Intel. Blame it on IBM who didn't want Apple to use PowerBook for a Mac with an Intel chip, which forced the company to rename the whole line.
Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says:
“The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
I read it all. But like many of these science.org articles they are pretty short, and not of the best quality in my opinion. The article itself admits the practice isn’t widespread. It sounds to me like there are a few disgruntled folks on the research side because of some unexpected/ unwanted back and forth in the “commenting” phase of the research? I’m not going to act like I know the mechanics of how research projects like that progress, but it doesn’t sound like it was more than a road bump and then the projects continued after said commenting. No projects were defunded or cancelled as per the article. Were the government commenters out of line or uninformed? Sure that wouldn’t shock me. Does that equate to “HHS is overriding peer review” on some grand systematic level? Seems like a big jump to me, and I don’t feel like the article demonstrates that, but I’m open to other ideas if you see it differently
To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines.
Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph:
“ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ”
Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment.
Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense?
We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”.
The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable.
We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
The actual title of the article is “Exclusive: HHS is now weighing in on science in NIH grants”. As if they’ve never done that before? That’s literally one of HHS’s jobs.
The subtitle of the article is “Staffers say comments coming after NIH’s own approvals are overriding peer review”.
Are you arguing “HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design” means the same thing as that subtitle? Brushing aside the fact that we’re talking about comments coming after projects were approved?
The submitted title is editorialized to illicit a bigger response that the real tile would have, pretty cut and dry. And the content of the submitted article itself is very shallow.
You’re right, I personally got emotional about it. But that doesn’t prove “it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing”.
You didn’t care to comment on any of my other points besides the title, I’m happy to get feedback on those specific points as well :)
Yes, it is factual. They are overriding peer review to require changes to research scope and design. Did you read the actual article. Allow me to quote:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
* In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*vHHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*vAn ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population.
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says."
Oh man, I left Gmail 6-7 years ago for different reasons (a total overhaul & hardening of my personal privacy/ security posture), but kudos to you! Get away and don’t look back, you won’t regret it! I’d recommend de-googling your life of all their services, you really don’t need them. There are good, more privacy respecting options for just about everything except maps. Google Maps is the one service I still use constantly.
Meta and Google ads are kind of a must. It's the only service I cannot replace.
But for everyday humans, Google and Meta are the dark clouds in the sky you can just ignore, you do not need to stand in the rain. No one's making you.
Yeah I don’t use it for navigation, but for exploring your local area, finding restaurants, retail or other businesses it’s hard to ignore unfortunately
The author literally mentioned they are in the process of migrating to Fastmail, but it sounds like you’re bringing it up as a new recommendation? Then you restated the reason they are moving away (overbearing AI features in your face) as if it wasn’t the crux of their argument? Then you touted how good Fastmail migration features are after the author stated they actually like the fact they are starting with a clean slate, and are undecided if they even want to migrate? Something smells fishy here my friend
Didn't you consider that the comment you're replying to was for the benefit of other readers not necessarily the OP? I found it useful and yes I did read both.
On the other hand, it’s interesting and perhaps illuminating to people working in that field. A field mind you, that has made a little to no progress in decades. Arguments could be made they’ve made some errors and went down the wrong path. It’s a field that could probably use some new ideas.
reply