New Cannabis Based Menu for Chao Phraya Hospital patients (service being rolled out to other hospitals too)
"This cannabis special menu is bringing different parts of the cannabis plant to use with leaves to cook as ingredients in food" #cannabis #Thailand

@br0oklynzo0 @KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg Okay, so you haven't read the study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, you've read a Guardian story about it.

I have now read the study, and I teach critical appraisal as part of my job, so let's dive into it a bit.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg First things first, the sample size in this study is tiny. 46 people. Plus, the point of comparison was "all women and men under the age of 30 in the Air Force between 2004 and 2014" rather than a longitudinal group.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg So no matching for age, background, or physical condition. The result of these is that you're going to get a lot of statistical artefacts.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg Second of all, there were three points of comparison here and you're ignoring two of them. The researchers measured for push-ups and sit-ups as well, both of which showed physical advantage removed entirely by hormones. Which means you're cherrypicking.

@KatyMontgomerie @ElPolloDiabloX @AbigailShrier @chadfelixg So what do you get when you have a tiny sample size and cherrypicked results? That's right, you get noise in the data. Take a look at the results graph from this paper you haven't read.

Thread:
I'm thinking about Tim Keller's influence.

There is the curious fact that Keller is well-regarded among the culture elite (or at least has not suffered the sort of vilification one might expect given his influence). How can we explain this?

Looking at Prodigal God and other writings, you see that his approach to urban ministry is deeply political in a way that appeals to Democrat-heavy cities. It involves two moves:

1) equalizing sins: elevating the sin of hypocrisy, "moralism," and "religion" (the sins of "conservatives") and equating these with the sins tolerated among liberal (e.g., homosexuality)
&
2) emphasizing "self-righteousness" as a sort of chief sin (the sin of "red states").

Keller effectively downplays the sins that liberals tolerate while elevating the sins of their political enemies, the red state conservatives.

But the greatest appeal to liberals is that critiquing the "self-righteous" vilifies political action, particularly the action of social conservatives (e.g., anti-gay marriage). And the equalization of sins eases concerns over changes in social policy (e.g., gay marriage).

The #RELAx trial has been published today in @JAMA. It was coordinated by Anna Algera. This thread is to explain the rationale, what we did, the findings and the meaning.
The rationale of #RELAx is based on the following

First, there is NO adequate evidence on the level of PEEP in non-ARDS patients. Most of the studies are old, conducted in post-surgical patients (short-term ventilation), and were not powered to detect differences in patient-centered

Second, despite the absence of evidence, the levels of PEEP used in non-ARDS patients increased over years, from 5 to 7/8 cmH2O, probably as a reflection of studies and practice in ARDS

Third, one IPDM showed that higher levels of PEEP could benefit more severe ARDS patients. However, opposite trends (higher mortality and longer ventilation) were found in mild ARDS with higher PEEP (despite not powered to be statistically

Fourth, most of the weaning protocols include PEEP ≤ 5 cmH2O as a criterion for readiness to wean. Theoretically, a standardized liberal strategy of higher PEEP could delay weaning in some

Once again I'm reminded that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The recent push by a large number of autistic people to 'own' their diagnosis and try to raise acceptance and dispel harmful myths has kicked up a minority of autistic people to fight against this.

This may seem bizarre - who fights against improved acceptance? - but actually has clear roots in the ongoing culture war the West seems engaged in. The identity positive autistic movement, of which I am a part, is viewed by some as another manifestation of 'wokeness'.

This is the right-wing definition of 'wokeness', of course - ie a modern equivalent of the pejorative take on political correctness, but it's definitely at the core of this 'neurorealist' movement - the idea the autistic community is being hijacked by 'woke lefties'.

They believe that the push for acceptance of neurodiversity and rejection of the medicalisation of autism is misguided and drawing attention away from those autistic people who, in their view, need more help and intervention.

The trouble is, this view is pretty much baseless. Firstly, there is little evidence that autistic advocates who push for acceptance are in any way harming autistic people who require more help and support. Second, the view effectively silences those of us who are able to share.

I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.

They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.

I'm curious about this.

Like, it's more important to them that people know how debilitating their anxiety is, than to overcome the anxiety.

Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."

Or they want people buy into the narrative that they've been traumatized, and might be something like offended if someone minimizes that.

What do we make of this?

1. One possibility is that if solving the problems seems hopeless or even just really hard, you need external support to be able to cope.

If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.