Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials (DB-RCT), if designed and conducted well, are widely considered the gold standard in medical research for purposes of establishing causal efficacy. Their logic is compelling: by balancing out all confounding variables through the research design, DB-RCTs are thought to reveal whether a proposed treatment-by virtue of its characteristic constituents-causes therapeutic effects. Many studies on psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT) follow this ostensible gold standard and use a DB-RCT design. But several authors have already noted that conducting psychedelic DB-RCTs is particularly challenging: due to the psychoactive effects of psychedelics, participant awareness of condition assignment is likely; this awareness may then interact with response expectancy and experimenter behavior, introducing systematic bias into the trial. For this reason, these authors have suggested ways to rescue DB-RCTs for PAT. This paper takes a different direction. It argues that we should abandon the DB-RCT design as the assumed gold standard in PAT research, because its logic is largely undermined by the intervention(s) in question, and the design in its standard form neglects potentially important aspects of PAT (i.e., extrapharmacological factors and their interaction(s) with the psychedelic). Abandoning DB-RCT opens the door to a more holistic study of PAT, in which DB-RCTs are still useful for certain ends but are considered to produce results that are not per se superior but complementary to those of other research designs.

wtf is madness anyway (my love affair with BoJack Horseman) I was nicknamed Sarah Bernhardt when I was younger, because I was so dramatic.Apparently at eight I was terrible. 1But I grew out of it. 2 to keep writing; which is relief; seeking perpetually what cannot beThough at ten I was a bitch. Laughter laufing lawghlings 3 (see writing as relief) genius artistic temperament (?), bad manners, too many emotions the dark irony of the world (see Beckett as Mad Hatter) a tool of the wealthy (white-)Functional seems to be a good word.People like to tell me I'm functional, as a way of soothing my self-loathing when it rises out of its acid to eat

The neurodiversity movement has long advocated for "Nothing about us without us" or the necessity of including neurominoritized people, such as Autistics, in the production of public policies, social discourses, academic knowledge, and scientific research about neurominoritized profiles, including autism. Similarly, the scientific and academic communities are increasingly recognizing the importance for participatory research to be not only ethical but also emancipatory. Yet the call for "Nothing about us without us" is still too often ignored, inaccurately understood, or imperfectly applied, in ways that can be jarring and disrespectful at best, and violent and traumatic at worst. Drawing on my experience as an Autistic woman, academic, and self-advocate who has participated in studies on autism, I develop a proposal for how the principle of "Nothing about us without us," understood as reclaiming epistemic authority and agency, might best be implemented in emancipatory research with Autistic adults. Specifically, I turn to two frameworks that have so far been developed independently of each other, yet that prove to be particularly fruitful when used together in this context: namely, the frameworks of design justice and of epistemic injustice. Drawing on both frameworks, I identify four principles of justice so that participatory autism research can be conducted in both an ethical and an emancipatory manner that heeds the neurodiversity movement's call for "Nothing about us without us" - namely, the principles of thorough involvement, of nonnormative communication, of trust-building, and of accountability.

ABSTRACT: Generalizations in medical research can be informative, but also misleading. Building on recent work in the philosophy of science and ethics of communication, I offer a novel analysis of common generalizations in clinical trials as generics in natural language. Generics, which express generalizations without terms of quantification, have attracted considerable attention from philosophers, psychologists, and linguists. My analysis draws on probabilistic and contextual features of generics to diagnose how these generalizations function and malfunction across communicative contexts in medicine. Given a high risk of misinterpretation ("slippage"), I recommend avoidance of generic claims about medical interventions in public contexts, exemplified by clinical trials and medical research more generally. Generics should only be used with vigilance in private contexts, exemplified by the physician–patient encounter. My analysis provides tools to support vigilance when communicating with generics, suggests new norms for public science communication, and raises deeper questions in the ethics of clinical communication.

Abilify MyCite was granted regulatory approval in 2017, becoming the world's first "smart pill" that could digitally track whether patients had taken their medication. The new technology was introduced as one that had gained the support of patients and ethicists alike, and could contribute to solving the widespread and costly problem of patient nonadherence. Here, we offer an in-depth exploration of this narrative, through an examination of the origins and development of Abilify, the drug that would later become MyCite. This history illuminates how an antipsychotic can become a top-selling drug and maintain its blockbuster status for more than a decade. It also provides a detailed case study for how knowledge is constructed within the logic of biomedical capitalism, providing impetus to reexamine claims regarding how MyCite addresses patient nonadherence, engenders patient support, and is ethicist-approved.