Run trials with an astounding number of easily avoidable flaws, win stupid prizes. It would be a shame for this to turn into an overall setback for psychedelic therapy.
Sure, the FDA could go against the recommendation, but that’s a political nonstarter given the problems included sexual assault. We need studies that are unassailable on the data collection such that the psychoactive (qualitative) effects are just an outlier in the list of quantitative results.
So how are you supposed to be able to double-blind a study involving MDMA? It seems essentially impossible, which makes it inevitable that this will always happen at every review, no?
Why is double-blinding so important in this specific instance to the point that it’s best that the buck stops here?
Seems like an easy way to kill momentum of a life-saving mental health treatment because it’s politically inconvenient (and maybe endangers existing pharmaceutical products?).
I have no fucking clue how you’re supposed to double blind it. Obviously the patients will realise if theyve been giving MDMA.