It is becoming increasingly clear that decision making re drug safety needs some outside of medicine input. Assume (which I do not) those handing out these treatments are not greedy, nasty perverts but rather suffer from the forest for the trees syndrome in consequence of being to close to the treatment to be able to accurately evaluate …
It is becoming increasingly clear that decision making re drug safety needs some outside of medicine input. Assume (which I do not) those handing out these treatments are not greedy, nasty perverts but rather suffer from the forest for the trees syndrome in consequence of being to close to the treatment to be able to accurately evaluate its outcome. So panels carrying this responsibility need some infusion of common sense with composition totally outside of med/psy fields...maybe individuals who have to deal with the bad outcomes such as parents, cops, etc.
.... almost anyone who don't have a conflict of interest is good... but, I'd also add generalists type of scientists, because those individuals tend to understand complex systems better then many of the "experts" in the medical research following the reductionists approach. I'd definitely include the best Amish farmer and a couple of other successful, experienced farmers who are active in the organic-regenerative farming movement. People who raise animals and grow food through the bio/regenerative agriculture have valuable experience in the actual outcome of applying nature friendly and chemical free approaches. Observational experience should be as valuable than the double blinded clinical research studies. People who use their "two hands" to make a living (historically) are better equipped to understand the complexity of our world than many people in academia. Their experience is "grounded" in reality and guided by common sense rather statistical models based on junk science.
It is becoming increasingly clear that decision making re drug safety needs some outside of medicine input. Assume (which I do not) those handing out these treatments are not greedy, nasty perverts but rather suffer from the forest for the trees syndrome in consequence of being to close to the treatment to be able to accurately evaluate its outcome. So panels carrying this responsibility need some infusion of common sense with composition totally outside of med/psy fields...maybe individuals who have to deal with the bad outcomes such as parents, cops, etc.
.... almost anyone who don't have a conflict of interest is good... but, I'd also add generalists type of scientists, because those individuals tend to understand complex systems better then many of the "experts" in the medical research following the reductionists approach. I'd definitely include the best Amish farmer and a couple of other successful, experienced farmers who are active in the organic-regenerative farming movement. People who raise animals and grow food through the bio/regenerative agriculture have valuable experience in the actual outcome of applying nature friendly and chemical free approaches. Observational experience should be as valuable than the double blinded clinical research studies. People who use their "two hands" to make a living (historically) are better equipped to understand the complexity of our world than many people in academia. Their experience is "grounded" in reality and guided by common sense rather statistical models based on junk science.