Depression trial, n=14 Ayahuasca, n=15 placebo.

8/14 vomited, & 4/14 hospitalized for an entire week.

"Overall, this study brings new evidence supporting the safety and therapeutic value of psychedelics."

Also, in a group of treatment-resistant folks who have a median time of 11 YEARS for which they suffered from depression, can we please stop funding and publishing trials with 7 DAYS follow-up? How is this still a thing?…
The list is quite long.
-lots of tests for outcomes w/o multiple testing
-50% of pvals in abstract are 0.04 wink wink
-no drug*time interaction
Perhaps biggest issue: authors say in discussion that blinding was successful because 5/14 in placebo thought they got A. Supplementary shows that ALL in A group thought they got A (first and last column).

I can't interpret that as anything else but misleading on purpose.
For this study, treatment resistant folks were taken off their meds for a few weeks (washout) and put into a dark room for hours & given an active placebo. In placebo group, 73% developed anxiety, 53% headaches. This may explain why some mistook placebo for A.
This isn't the most generous reading of the article. There are real strengths here, including recruiting folks naive to A & providing active placebo to try to ensure blinding, as well as detailed supplementary. But the conclusions are really problematic and at odds w findings.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Eiko Fried

Eiko Fried Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EikoFried

11 Nov
I really dislike "brain health" when talking about emotional/mental health problems. It attributes problems often due to stressors & external events, stigma, discrimination, & adverse healthcare/political systems to an individual/their brain.
If stressors are severe enough (e.g. repeated & very severe trauma), most people, no matter their "brain health", will develop emotional/mental health problems. Health is a lot more than your brain.
There are mechanisms in the brain (like in other parts of the body) that can make folks more vulnerable to certain types of problems. But that doesn't justify the term brain health.
Read 4 tweets
7 Nov
Here's a simple thought experiment showing that if psychopathology were categorical, it would still show up as dimensional using current taxometric methods. 🧵
Taxometric analyses happen at the between subjects (group) level, usually using one measurement point.

You usually get distributions on the left side (often with skew), not distributions on the right side—again, at the population level.
But psychopathology is not a between-subjects process, it's a within-subjects process.

So let's now simulate within-subjects data for 100 people who all have depression, as a categorical, not dimensional process. I'll show you processes for 6 people.
Read 6 tweets
28 Oct
Just finished a short talk on transparency horror stories. It was a fun event, but some of the things I've seen over the years have been quite disturbing.

I'll share 2 egregious examples here about editorial decisions & reviews. 🧵
A paper by a student of mine was reviewed in a prominent journal. The anonymous reviews were ok but not great, the editor rejected the paper for confidential reasons.

Really odd that there can be confidential scientific reasons not to publish a paper that authors cannot address.
I followed up with editor, who said they can't help me.
I tweeted about it, & decided that mb this is the 1 in a million scenario, mb there's a good reason, I just can't think of it.
2 days later someone wrote me a DM: they had had exactly the same experience w journal & editor.
Read 13 tweets
3 Oct
1/7 Here's your response, @RawsthorneMat!

From where I'm standing, this insight isn't new. @bringmann_laura, @aaronjfisher Ellen Hamaker, @fionnekebos, @Oisin_Ryan_, @jonashaslbeck, Marieke Wichers, et al have been grappling with this for 1/2 decade.

2/7 In our own work, we've written about this in detail, too. CF our 2017 challenges paper with @angecramer in which we have a dedicated section on the topic; our 2017 review paper that lists this challenge; and my 2021 Psych Inquiry paper features inference gap as core topic.
3/7 I also briefly went back to the very first workshop I taught 2016, which (like all future ones) had a dedicated section on this problem. So from where I'm standing, the field isn't "finally recognizing" this issue; it's well known, & folks have struggled & grappled with it.
Read 7 tweets
24 Sep
Just finished my keynote at @conference_2021 on "Mental health: studying systems instead of syndromes". You can find slides & new preprint here: Really enjoyed making a completely new presentation from scratch.

The first barrier to progress I talk about is diagnostic literalism and its consequences: while many of us don't believe in MDD or schizophrenia as "natural disease units" in the world, case-control research in our field is often carried out in that way.
I discuss some historical evidence on how arbitrary many of the categories and thresholds we have today in DSM-5 were, and that DSM-5 may look quite different today if minor things had gone differently.

This means diagnostic categories are not natural kinds.
Read 9 tweets
22 Jul
There is a broad coalition in 🇳🇱 academia trying to improve the status quo.

Not surprisingly, there were quick responses to a number of recent pieces pushing back against reforms. You can find these rebuttals here. 🧵
1. "Science is NOT like competitive sports."(🇬🇧)
By @YALeiden members & colleagues at @UniLeiden.…
2. "We need to get rid of numeracy in science."(🇳🇱)
By a coalition of early career scholars. You can sign the document at the bottom.…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!