Is this AI or someone put the effort into compiling a database and added automatic search function?

All of that is great when we get useable information or even when it exhausts all options to no positive result. It's just another tool to find out answers. The term AI is used waaaay too broadly.

- Distributed computing

- Feature selection

- Budgeting / accounting of experimental design (these TPU clusters are not cheap)

- ML architecture

- Involvement of domain experts (multidisciplinary teams)

- Storage

The whole list is much longer, but just some topics to think about. For me the term "AI", although overly broad, come to mean the engineering and organisation needed to pull these kind of projects.

In fact, it's a kind of expert system. But in the 80's, expert systems didn't have access to that:

https://skr3.nlm.nih.gov/SemMedDB/

https://github.com/webyrd/mediKanren

(I'm aware that Lisps have a long history in AI but I understood that to be kind of in the past at this point...)

And also, Dan Friedman, Matt Might and Will Byrd are VERY clever people. So much for people complaning nothing useful ever comes out of Racket!

Congratulations to you and your team!!

It's definitely a deliberate leap back to the old logical/symbolic era of AI.

Not mentioned in the article is that logic makes it much easier to emit "proofs" that end users like physicians can understand.

Another question - would it be possible to visualize the exact chain of reasoning used by mediKanren to link ketamine to this disease? It would be wonderful to see exactly what the tool brought to the table that human researchers missed.

Yes, it is always possible, in fact, since logical arguments can always be rendered as proof trees.

p.s. would love it if you do a reddit AMA

That would be great, but it would be something we learn on the other side of controlled trials.

Addiction is not a mere matter of personal responsibility but a complex bio-psycho-social phenomena.

Oversimplified solutions from both sides of the argument does the most harm.

It’s fair to be skeptical, but the data is not there. Cannabis, MDMA, and ketamine all have high potential for addiction and the latter two potential for abuse but it is possible to find Ketamine clinics for safe administration. I’m not familiar if there is public MDMA treatment available.

Yes and out of the opium wars I believe is why the state of Hong Kong came into existence. China had contractual obligations to buy opium, I believe they ended up dumping it into the bay in sort of a Tea Party type scenario but it was the Chinese government who did the dumping.

The opium wars are pretty damn fascinating. OH and if I'm not mistaken it was a contractual obligations with the East India Trading company and the British government backed the EITC by making a trade blockade.

Marijuana and psilocybin have been around for literal ages with widespread use. LSD and ketamine are synthesized, but we have decades of experience with them.

And please tell the FDA and WHO not to ban this awesome herb. The deadline for comments is August 9th. https://www.americankratom.org/

While the numbers are small (unsurprisingly, if it's not nearly as widely known and used as some other substances), it may not be quite as innocuous as you seem to imply:

> "A 2019 paper analyzing data from the National Poison Data System found that between 2011-2017 there were 11 deaths associated with kratom exposure. Nine of the 11 deaths reported in this study involved kratom plus other drugs and medicines, such as diphenhydramine (an antihistamine), alcohol, caffeine, benzodiazepines, fentanyl, and cocaine. Two deaths were reported following exposure from kratom alone with no other reported substances."

> "In 2017, the FDA identified at least 44 deaths related to kratom, with at least one case investigated as possible use of pure kratom."

(https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/kratom)

Actually, even the study you linked has some disturbing statements:

> Deaths attributed to the use of Kratom have been reported in Europe and the United States but not in Southeast Asia.

> The increasing trend in Kratom consumption in the West has corresponded with an increase in reports of Kratom-related exposures to Poison Control Centers in the United States, care received at a health care facility due to Kratom consumption, and association with overdose fatalities.

> Kratom was identified as the cause of death by a medical examiner in 91 of the 152 Kratom-positive deaths, but was the only identified substance in just seven of these cases.

How many deaths and ruined lives will those enforcing a Kratom ban be responsible for? Perhaps we should consult the history of bans of other drugs to get some idea.

Anyone claiming that their reason for adding yet another substance to The Forever War on Drugs is harm reduction should be laughed out of the room at this point. I reckon that, because the Covid vaccine has been responsible for at least ten blood clots we should also set up a global ban to ensure nobody ever gets to take it.

I didn't say it should be banned. Or that it shouldn't. I don't know enough to form an opinion on the question.

I just wondered how balanced and objective the post from irthomasthomas was, did a quick search for other points of view, and felt it was worth offering some additional comments for consideration.

Kratom is an opioid, full stop. People are under the mistaken impression that it’s less addictive because it’s less potent on a per-gram basis, but addicts simply end up consuming more grams to get similar highs.

It’s not a “mood regulator” in any magical sense other than it’s an opioid and opioids temporarily put people in good moods.

There are many communities dedicated to quitting Kratom and handling Kratom withdrawal, which is the same as withdrawing from other opioids (For instance: https://www.reddit.com/r/quittingkratom/ ).

Whether or not you think Kratom should be legal, we shouldn’t be glorifying it as a harmless substance that somehow defies the realities of every other opioid.

kratom is certainly not a miracle herb, but its characteristics do make it a lot less addictive and lethal than its more popular relatives. it's not unreasonable to think it might be used in replacement therapy, similar to buprenorphine.

Yea, that's what you read online. But after going 2.5 months without sleep (I would doze off for half an hour once a twice per night), 4 months of acute depression, and umm like a year of PAWS, I beg to differ. If you're going off of personal experience, congrats, you didn't abuse it.

Someone already linked the quitting kratom subreddit where you can hear all kinds of horror stories.

Finally, comparing Kratom to traditional opiods isn't all that useful. Kratom has a shitload of other active alkaloids and very little research on their effects. Saying it's less addictive than other opiodis is like saying you'd rather get hit by a car going 60 vs 100.

Personally, I would have been much much better off if Kratom had been illegal, and I am amazed it still is.

humans can become addicted to pretty much anything that's enjoyable. some things are probably much more addictive than others, but you can't really create a strict ordering of addictive substances/activities when every individual responds differently. is kratom less addictive than heroin? I would guess yes. is it more addictive than alcohol? I don't know, probably yes for some, no for others.

Edit: also, I'll bite on the r/quittingkratom link. The first upvoted thread I see is the following: https://www.reddit.com/r/quittingkratom/comments/ozuh1r/krat.... 90 grams per day for 10 years is an absolutely staggering amount of kratom to consume. (For reference, I would feel sick if I ate more than 4 grams at a time, and never felt the need to exceed 5 gpd.) And this person didn't even skip work during withdrawals. They claim the worst part is restless legs and not being able to sleep. Hardly seems comparable to a person quitting a heavy oxycontin habit.

They're illegal for many reasons, which are mostly: stupid, unjust, racist, harmful, and hypocritical.

Alcohol is one of the most harmful "recreational" drugs, but it's still perfectly legal, and no one is seriously proposing we make it illegal again, despite all the violence, addiction, sickness, and death it causes.

Virtually all of the illegal drugs are less harmful than alcohol, and when they are harmful it's largely because they're illegal, as it means people can't reliably get what they thought they were buying, which leads to overdoses.

Not to mention all of the organized crime, imprisonment, and ruining of lives that prohibition causes (especially of the poor and minorities).

Poe's law [1] -- it didn't seem like satire when I read it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

But the physiological reality is most opioids are harmless if dosed correctly. They do tend to make people happier although often less productive or driven.

We should focus on harm reduction. If registered addicts can get a regular dose of a pure opioid in a safe setting they can often be productive members of society albeit maybe less so than if they had never became addicts.

People function for decades on methadone or buperenorphine therapies with few if any ill effects besides constipation.

I would like to see a society where people with refractory depression were given the option to try opioids. Often depressiom is caused by obsessive ruminations on topics of anxiety or social isolation. By supressing the subjective feeling of psychic pain opioids directly attack these problems at their root. SSRIs may be more indirect. I bet in many cases it would help.

Opioid tolerance is a real thing but we should be looking for ways to attenuate the tolerance formation process.

It is bizarre to me how current progressive circles push cannabis but demonise opioids.

In my opinion as a non-addict but somebody who has had limited experience with various opioids years ago I think they are the closest thing to a psychological wonder drug.

I wonder if they are so demonised because they actually work?

It is true overdose can be lethal but this is a dosing issue with unpure stree products not an inevitability.

Driving too fast can be lethal too.

That doesn’t really work with kratom. There’s a ceiling to the effects, unlike regular opiates (which kratom is not) and consuming more doesn’t produce stronger enjoyable effects. It tops out at about codeine level, or perhaps 1 hydrocodone.

This is a strange claim. Kratom alkaloids appear to be opioid receptor partial agonists [1]. De-escalation from opioids to kratom makes sense. Cocaine and alcohol addiction usually do not require "maintenance" post-rehab [2,3], unlike opioid dependence which is highly persistent [4], and this seems to muddy the story of a promising treatment [5] (it may compete favorably with buspirone and methadone) by mixing in stories of polydrug users who switched from cocaine to kratom.

I think kratom deserves further investigation not because it is so miraculous but because the options for effective management of opioid use disorder are extremely limited, so I would think defenses of kratom should focus on this application in particular. It is certainly much less deadly than true opioids.

1: https://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/376/3/410.abstract

2: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abst...

3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037687160...

4: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067369...

5: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40122-020-00151-x

As opposed to heroin and cocaine right?

And cocaine? Why is cocaine worse than alcohol?

I definitely think the pharmecuetical industry pushing drugs is a big problem. But that doesn't mean we should deny people treatments that work. Instead we should fix the actual problem: innapropruate presceiptions. Note that opiods are mostly not a problem here in the UK for example. We're much stricter about when they're used.

In any case, I think there's much less risk here. Ketamine is a somewhat addictive, but nowhere near as bad as opiods, and cannabis and especially psychedelics are pretty much not addictive.

It doesn't seem too good to be true to me. It seems obvious that the chemicals which clearly affect the mind are the ones which are likely to have some use for... affecting the mind in a positive way. They've at least cleared the first hurdle!

In the meantime, opioid overdoses have continued to climb. Turns out that forcing people into the black market to deal with terrible pain is not a good policy.

Banning opiate use results in deaths, restricting prescriptions moves addicts to the black market, the status quo results in more addicts.

The point of the polices was to counter the incredibly destructive result of the surge of cocaine, crack, heroin use in the mid 1970s and early to mid 1980s. And the deaths from the drug use and the gangs fighting over the spoils. It really was a war. Mexico didn't seem to make it, I think the drugs won.

I know for some people these days it's cool to poo poo the so-called "war on drugs" but to Gen X who lived through the surge it was not a great time. Every day some news of deaths, fights, we were constantly reminded of it. Something had to be done and the free-for-all didn't seem to be working. I guess just like psychology you hear of examples where the stern family raises a wild child and the carefree family raises a straight-edge child the program backfired.

Drugs are chemicals just as is water and yes if a drug is useful then study it and use them for good if possible. But to others it seems many view all drugs as holy and that they can do no wrong is ridiculous.

This would be plausible if the policies were focused on those drugs exclusively. However, I see the draconian policies targeted towards cannabis, hallucinogens, and amphetamines as pretty ample evidence that the "war on drugs" had much wider ambitions than curbing the usage of these hard narcotics.

Edit) To your point of folks speaking harshly of our current drug policies - look at where we are now, 50 years later. A nationwide opioid crisis created by pharma companies. A generation, if not two, of young men and fathers locked up in prison with little to no room for upwards mobility. Communities, already economically deprived, losing stability, obliteration of the nuclear family core, and enduring oppressive policing policies. So yes, I think its entirely fair for a new generation to shit on the war on drugs. Even if the policy was formed with good intentions (which is, frankly, debatable), it is still bad policy.

I think a big part of the issue is that you quickly develop a tolerance to Ketamine, so if you're a daily user, there's a strong tendency to up the dosage to maintain its effect. If you're a casual user or are careful to spread it out to avoid tolerance buildup, I think it can be avoided.

With that said, you're absolutely right that it is a danger that needs to be kept in mind, but from what I've read, if you're not abusing it, the risk seems low.

Is it that much of a surprise that psychoactive drugs treat psychogenic symptoms? In the particular case of pain, the two major available drug classes -- opioids and benzodiazepines -- mimic the activity of addictive recreational drugs opium and alcohol. THC is used per se instead of derivatives because of its price and safety record (contrast opium/alcohol).

For depression/PTSD, psychiatry has thrown the kitchen sink at these conditions. It's more "newsworthy" when MDMA is used for PTSD than propanolol even though both serve essentially the same purpose: allowing the patient to discuss the traumatic experience without experiencing the emotional effects of that trauma, by blocking them physiologically. In this case, "blocking negative emotions" is a naturally desirable effect of a recreational drug (propanolol also blocks many positive emotions, rendering it less fun). Modifying emotions in depression doesn't seem like a surprise either, although psychedelics can be unreliable here (and this is well-documented). I expect some negative side-effects to appear, but I disagree that this is much of a change from the norm, except insofar as it upends a taboo. Methaqualone got its start treating insomnia, and the medical history of amphetamine is too long to fit in this comment.

In fact, during the early history of psychedelics, there were developed "less recreational" analogues of the major drugs, such as diethyl-psilocin ("ethocin") and 5'-methoxy-MDA ("MMDA") which were considered as possibly safer adjuvants to psychotherapy. The rediscovery of these agents might benefit more from attention on their history of bona fide therapeutic use, rather than on their recreational past. Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised when some psychiatric medications turn out to be recreational, and mitigate the consequences pragmatically, rather than reflexively recoiling from anything resembling euphoria. One thing you learn from Infinite Jest is that the mere materialism of emotion is especially unnerving insofar as it applies to happiness, but reality isn't going away anytime soon.

What happened in this article with ketamine is quite different: test-tube evidence uncovered an effect that modifies a rare hereditary condition. I think the story here is really more about data-mining, and ketamine just happens to be interesting.

The surprising part is the growing narrative that these psychoactive drugs are basically miracle cures without downsides.

Drugs like LSD are being explored as adjuncts to intense therapy spanning many sessions, but the pop-science portrayal of these drugs ignores that intense therapy and instead imagines that tripping on mushrooms or LSD is a cure for psychiatric illness. It also ignores the fact that bad trips are a very real possibility and worsening of psychiatric illness is not uncommon among illicit users of these drugs. There are plentiful reports of psychedelics causing weeks or months of dysphoria or even precipitating long-lasting episodes of major depression, and it’s not hard to find them either.

If we want to get anywhere with these substances, we need to quit exaggerating their positive effects and downplaying their negatives. That’s a setup for failure when they’re further studied and the reality can’t match the unreasonably loft pop-culture presentation of these drugs as miracle cures that act alone without any downsides.

It is, as the grandparent comment said, reminiscent of the early days of opioids when we were bombarded with stories about how they were miracle cures without downsides. The truth is that they’re helpful in controlled circumstances but can be harmful when overdosed or prescribed without supervision, which doesn’t sound that different then the situation with drugs like ketamine.

Who is 'we'? Sure, the media exaggerates the benefits of psychedelics. You can also find plenty of stories exaggerating the benefits of electric cars, veganism, meditation, antioxidants, or martial arts, among other things.

The media loves a narrative with a miracle -- how is that the "surprising part"?

>the early days of opioids

The early days of opioids were in the nineteenth century. I certainly don't recall being bombarded with stories about them. The post-mortem of the opioid painkiller crisis (the "codones") focused on deceitful marketing from pharmaceutical companies aimed at physicians, not pop-psych puff pieces for a lay audience. There is no shortage of exaggeration in the cornucopia of cannabis clickbait, but the situation is not comparable.

Inaccuracy in pop-sci is lamentable, but not historic, and usually the only thing that comes of it are bins of discarded magazines.

Just look for it

I think we’re already starting to see this on a smaller scale.

One of my friends is a therapist who does a lot of social work predominantly for low-income people coming from difficult situations. She encounters a lot of people who have become heavily dependent on marijuana under a mistaken impression that smoking multiple times every day is a good treatment for depression or anxiety. Many of them are under the impression than marijuana is a wonder drug that treats everything from psychiatric illnesses to cancer. Meanwhile they’re clearly too impaired and unmotivated to get their lives together due to being constantly high. She spends a lot of time convincing people to moderate their consumption or even abstain entirely. The results are great if she can convince them to stop, but that’s a difficult task.

More worrisome is the increasing number of parents she sees who are trying to medicate their juvenile children with marijuana. Some of the stories she tells about parents who are convinced they’re doing their kids a favor by giving them THC edibles before school (supposedly for anxiety) are downright tragic.

There is a growing mistrust of pharmaceutical companies and mainstream psychiatry that mirrors the rise of things like anti-vaxxers and belief in essential oils. Many companies are rushing to fill this demand for alternative medicine with products and services ranging from pushing heavy THC consumption to ketamine clinics that will give ketamine to anyone willing to pay a few hundred dollars per dose.

In the case of this article the discovery of ketamine’s actions is more likely to spur development of new molecules that can be used without the obvious side effects of ongoing ketamine treatment (which is not as harmless as it sounds when repeatedly dosed over a lifetime).

> There is a growing mistrust of pharmaceutical companies and mainstream psychiatry that mirrors the rise of things like anti-vaxxers

This statement seems to ignore the crisis brought by narcotic drugs. People should be skeptical of pharmaceutical companies. There is a long history of their drugs killing people. It's really not worth my time to post it all, but feel free to do a little research yourself.

Comparing them to antivaxxers is inflammatory and inaccurate.

And yes, she generally refers people to psychiatric treatment under the guidance of doctors who can monitor and adjust medications over time. Outcomes on mainstream depression and anxiety medications are far more positive and the people do much, much better after getting proper treatment with proper medications.

There is no comparison. Marijuana is not an effective depression treatment even though it may temporarily dull feelings and emotions. Long-term studied outcomes are poor.

citation required.

There is no comparison because you are speaking in anecdotes, not data.

Even if it is a "net negative" is it a bigger net negative than the cognitive effects of anti depressants?

How is it "whataboutism" when the two are being used to treat the same illnesses, but you only look at the negative effects of marijuana in a vacuum, while at the same time lauding pharmaceuticals.

That describes how my teenage Lithium prescription felt far better than it does marijuana use. Though perhaps they have better pharmaceuticals now than they did 20 years ago.

Unlike all those "unfun" drugs? I think side effects are part and parcel of virtually all drugs. Do we need a special all-caps disclaimer anytime a drug is mentioned to remind people that side effects exist? If we did, most of the biggest disclaimers would be reserved for fully-legal, commonly-prescribed drugs.

Most drugs have side effects, including all the legal pharmaceuticals. E.g. normal antidepressants aren't without risk.

Anyways, that's why its important to study them - see where they lie on the risk-benefit trade-off curve.

> The opioid epidemic was largely caused by the idea of them being non addictive

I don't know which idiots thought these were non addictive. Like there was even the opium wars faught over this point in the 1800s. We've known of the danger since the 1700s.

Risk/no-risk dichotomy is misleading in that those categories do not consist of homogeneously comparable members. Nausea from an SSRI is not the same as triggering a first psychotic episode from psychedelic drug use, or pushing your neuroticism a standard deviation higher from stimulant abuse or getting stuck in opioid addiction.

I'm not saying that popular drugs are risk free. They definitely aren't. That's why its important to study them and understand what the risks are so people can make informed decisions about them (under the supervision of a doctor)

Ketamine has been in medical use for a long time as an anesthetic and has also been shown to be beneficial for depression in recent years. Its not "now" Ketamine.

Yes, there's probably negative side effects, but that's true for medicines in general.

---

>The opioid epidemic was largely caused by the idea of them being non addictive being heavy pushed by the pharmaceuticals industry.

False - there was never the "idea" that these were non-addictive - it was an active, malicious, evil fucking LIE.

---

One of the co-founders of Cisco, and one of the fathers of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), (as well as RIP, etc) - - which is aurguably the foundations of routing which makes the Internet possible, stated, in response to Hoffman's 100th birthday celebration (the discoverer of LSD):

(Paraphrased, mostly: "I was opposed to drug testing of employees at Cisco as we scaled -- if it weren't for LSD we wouldn't have been able to come up with many of the complex concepts behind BGP"

Here is one article on it:

https://www.wired.com/2006/01/lsd-the-geeks-wonder-drug/

I know first hand how much Drug/"anti-Culture" is imbued in Silicon Valley, computing in general.

I have done many a drug with many a people who have built the shit that the world lives and thrives on daily.

There is a STARK difference between a mood altering suppressant such as an opioid and expand nootropic drugs, such as LSD and Shrooms. Both of which are IMO some of the most important psycho-actives we have.

You are touching something (your machine) and consuming content (netflix etc) built by many people who have benefited, and thus had you benefit, from their experiences with 'altered-conscious'....

The Sackler Family is an evil piece of shit family that should be worse than in prison....

But The internet and Computing as we know it, would not exist if it were not for people who do not accept the simplicity of base reality and can operate at higher levels at times with the help of LSD/Shrooms.

its funny how one may equate "harmful addiction" with the USE of such substance.... in fact, my counter-culture DNA has shown me my entire life - that "the establishment" literally is quelling human growth because of the fact that using these reveals the fragility and tenuous control they actually have.

In fact, I am sitting here with a book that one of my best friends just sent me - "The Fabric of Reality" (by David Deutsch) and in all likelihood, this evening you will be using tech that he has helped build...

The only thing that is "too good to be true" is when someone else tells you definitively that you must do and act "this way" because we said so. (Look at the fucking state of the world at this moment -- you think that all these governments and institutions know what the fuck they are talking about? - no...)

Go microdose some shrooms for good measure.

That's not true. The new idea was that a manageable addiction was preferred to chronic pain. The theory was that addiction to opioids could be managed. That turned out to be not the case. People started selling pills and buying street heroin and it spiraled out of control.

The real crime here wasn't trying to help those in chronic pain with a manageable addiction, it was the incredibly long time it took for pharma companies and govt regulators to do anything about the crisis, even as some pharmacies in Florida and West Virginia were selling millions of pills, far more than their local communities would warrant. The suspicion is that a lot of money was being made, so why rush to intervene.

Chronic pain is basically the opposite. Where depression is almost guaranteed, and susceptibility to addiction is very high.

> This pain population with no abuse history is literally at no risk for addiction

> There have been studies suggesting that addiction rarely evolves in the setting of painful conditions

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/31/opioid-epidemic-nejm-let...

Obviously any reasonable person with a knowledge of opioids could see that these claims were BS, but it's remarkable what motivated reasoning can do, especially when there's profit involved.

[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/

the parent comment said "non addictive" which I said wasn't true. You said

> The claim was that the risk of addiction was extremely small

which is another way of saying they thought they could manage addiction that did occur. They thought this because they had a time-release pill which made the risk of problematic addiction "extremely small" as you say

People with rare diseases (and their families and caretakers) get excited about anything at all actually helpful, especially if it comes through official, approved medical channels, because they suffer a whole helluva lot every single day while listening to the medical community promise "cures" that never seem to arrive. It's an amazingly hard psychological thing to live with.

On a Cystic Fibrosis list years ago, a parent said "My child turns 18 today. The life expectancy now is 36. When he was born, the life expectancy was 18."

So gains get made but these are people who need a miracle cure and needed it "yesterday" who are, instead, getting incremental improvements at what feels like a glacial speed while they live tormented lives.

So, yeah, they get excited. But that doesn't mean they are going to all throw caution to the wind and jump on the band wagon. Some that do -- or seem to -- are basically "already dead anyway" if they don't try something new and are happy to take a gamble in hopes of one last hurrah and at least it's more data for others like them if it doesn't help them.

The policies that govern substances in the US are not based whatsoever on health outcomes, only money and racism.

That may change, but thinking of it as a one-dimensional pendulum is probably the wrong model for reasoning about it.

Effective treatments for difficult diseases always seem too good to be true: take paracetamol for an example.

Here's the link to the github app they mentioned: https://github.com/webyrd/mediKanren

It was something like this:

1. Search for the key word "A"

2. Find new keywords (b,c,..) that are associated with "A" (I did this with lingpipe [0]

3. Search each the new keywords (b,c, ...)

4. Find for each of them their associated keywords (finding (s, t, ...)

5. Repeat 3.

6. repeat 4. finding (z, x, ...)

7. If in (z, x, ...) one of them is associated with "A" then you discovered an hidden relation between "A" and one of the members of (s, t, ...) (hidden if it did not appear in the initial search).

[0] http://www.alias-i.com/lingpipe/

Woo! Biohacking at its best.

I do something sort of similar by eating hot peppers regularly. It opens up a different chanel than my defective chanel and helps me keep my chronic edema down to a dull roar, among other things.

To prepare the kids and their parents, the Seaver center sent stickers to practice applying to the kids’ chests, so they could get comfortable with the sensory experience of ECG readings.

I like these people.

https://youtu.be/FSdjvEnyRzk

Research to gain quality evidence is good, but sometimes other considerations outweigh that. Visible improvement in the sufferers of a rare disease may be such a case.