Editing 790: Control
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Depending upon how the flailing-limbed individual is interpretted, one or other 'treatment' may even have ''actually'' promoted the growth of additional body parts. Logically, this is more likely to arise from a trial drug intended to affect surface tissues (though still far from the usual expectations of any "anti-rash treatment") than a commonly used hallucinogen whose effects are generally understood to be on brain-chemistry and nervous function. Either outcome should worry ''any'' observer, even those not under the misconception that a placebo (also an unlikely cause, by definition) might be the provocative agent in this instance. | Depending upon how the flailing-limbed individual is interpretted, one or other 'treatment' may even have ''actually'' promoted the growth of additional body parts. Logically, this is more likely to arise from a trial drug intended to affect surface tissues (though still far from the usual expectations of any "anti-rash treatment") than a commonly used hallucinogen whose effects are generally understood to be on brain-chemistry and nervous function. Either outcome should worry ''any'' observer, even those not under the misconception that a placebo (also an unlikely cause, by definition) might be the provocative agent in this instance. | ||
β | The title text suggests that, in a different study, this substitution was performed when the product being tested was itself LSD. This led to the conclusion that LSD is no more likely to cause hallucinations than the 'placebo', implying that LSD is not a significant hallucinogen. We can only hope they were able to redo the test, as in layman's terms "Nonsense MUST be wrong". Randall could also have only sneaked placebo in as the 'LSD' element of the study, to get the same comparative effect, though | + | The title text suggests that, in a different study, this substitution was performed when the product being tested was itself LSD. This led to the conclusion that LSD is no more likely to cause hallucinations than the 'placebo', implying that LSD is not a significant hallucinogen. We can only hope they were able to redo the test, as in layman's terms "Nonsense MUST be wrong". Randall could also have only sneaked placebo in as the 'LSD' element of the study, to get the same comparative effect, though the difference between the ''whole'' cohorts between each modified type of study would be striking, if checked. |
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== |