Total over-hyping of the evidence, which did not show superiority. Griffiths showing allegiance bias towards his own research passion, and not the nuance the science actually showed.
"In this small study, psychotherapy + either psilocybin or escitalopram had similar outcomes."
"In this small study, psychotherapy + either psilocybin or escitalopram had similar outcomes."
https://twitter.com/RCarhartHarris/status/1382602331330646024
The researcher of the study (first author) here has retweeted this inaccurate summary of the science. As a phase 2 trial, it is not designed to test superiority to standard treatments.
This is why @sanilrege's comment couldn't be more prescient. We need larger studies done by independent (not biased) researchers. Allegiance and researcher bias is an issue here.
https://twitter.com/sanilrege/status/1382591940584112129
Psychedelic research has been FOREVER plagued by over-eager and over-hyping "believer-scientists", who use small, underpowered studies to make exaggerated claims. It's a huge problem that these groups are going to have to work to overcome.
As a pharmacologist and psychiatrist, I have no concerns with these pharmacological efforts or these compounds/receptor systems being tested in the efforts against psychiatric illness. It's always exciting to see novel compounds get to phase 2.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
