If you're working on a budget like I was when starting out on my own, I recommend your first purchase to be a bed frame. You can use Ceaigslist / FB marketplace to find some really cheap used options. From there, you can start buying (used) furniture that matches the bed frame. Personally, I needed a nightstand immediately after the bed frame because I wanted to put my glasses somewhere.
Good point, I'm assuming all monitors are as good as mine.
Fair point, but a lot of the article talks about how many studies aren't meeting all four pillars of clinical trial design - that's where my issue comes in, I think reporting that X% of trials do not meet all pillars is a bad metric.
And, not all medications these days are pills or IV infusions - some medications and treatments, which are governed by the FDA, are more invasive and more complicated.
The consent process for clinical trials has a ton of guidance (ICH GCP), but the onus is on the clinical monitors and hospitals to make sure it's done correctly. Many trials now generate supporting documentation in which hospital staff are required to describe the circumstances in which consent was acquired. If the documents are generated, then it's auditable.
Things get a bit hairy when you look at trials in Alzheimer's and other cognitive disorders, because the patient may not be coherent enough to withdraw from the trial. In those cases, a legal guardian is responsible for the decision.
Unfortunately, this was an issue before Trump and will continue to be one afterwards. Assuming there even is an afterwards...
The article brings up some great points, some of which that I, an industry insider, weren't even aware of, especially the historical context surrounding the AIDS epidemic. I'll jump into the thread to critique an issue within the article.
One of the four pillars recommended by the FDA (control groups) are great in theory but can lead to very real problems in practice, specifically within indications that have an unmet treatment need or are exceptionally rare conditions.
If you have a disease that is 99% fatal but has 0 standard of care treatment options, is it ethical to ask a participant to enroll in a clinical trial and potentially not receive the study treatment/be on placebo? Or, what if the trial involves an incredibly invasive procedure like brain surgery - is it ethical for people to do a placebo procedure? Food for thought - and an explanation for why so few trials meet all four criteria proposed by the FDA.
Happy to answer questions about the industry if anyone has them.
Hmm. I think you might be right. I thought the yellow face was enough to distinguish it as a Savannah Sparrow, but the dark legs might indicate it's a blackbird. I had no idea the females looked like that. And that area is basically swarming with blackbirds, so it's a lot more likely.
Taken with my mediocre phone camera through the lens of my adequate binoculars.
Addressed by the paper - they included age and income as control variables. The relationship b/w proximity and PD persists.
It's a reasonable theory. We have seen people develop Parkinsonian symptoms after exposure to toxins before - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9918159/
The statistics are interesting. If I understand correctly, they picked a group of people with Parkinson's and then identified 20 community-dwelling demographic-matched seniors who were the same age at the time of diagnosis. Then, they looked at the closest distance that the people lived to a golf course within 3 years prior to diagnosis, and computed the likelihood of developing Parkinson's based on demographics, distance to a golf course, and certain characteristics of the water and soil.
I'm not sure your assessment of the odds is accurate going from 9 out of 9000 to 10 out of 9000 should be an 11% increase. This paper shows something like 100% increase within 3 miles of a golf course. So that's 9 in 9000 to 18 in 9000. Still low risk but enough to make scientists go "huh" and maybe for politicians to consider changing regulations about pesticides (I wish). It's not just golf courses to worry about, though. Think of all the farmers, too, who are exposed to similar toxins.
The drinking water angle was added to see of certain soil or sources of drinking water would impact the odds of PD diagnosis. The paper was based on data from Minnesota iirc, so I would expect more rural people to have private wells. My understanding was it was less about "statistical significance" and more about "seeing if this variable can explain away the apparent impact of golf course proximity".
It's in a good sweet spot, IMO. Not as steep a learning curve as PoE was for me, and easier to just start a character from scratch than Grim Dawn. I feel like the skill tree rewards going in blind, and I've played so much GD that I can't really make a character unless I have a specific build planned out.
On the flip side, I much prefer GD's end game than LE. I think it's related to the fact that I don't like the seasonal aspect very much, but that's just my opinion. I joined late last season and didn't finish my first character (Mage who cast a high crit Glacier, focusing on the third hit of the chain). Maybe that'll change if I finish my Sentinel.
Option C: a shadow corp so big that different branches end up battling against one another without realizing it.
Taken through the lens of my very basic binoculars with my mediocre phone camera.
Great, now I have to start proof-reading any communications I get from the FDA to make sure it didn't hallucinate a scientific article in the citations. There's going to be so many Vegetative Microscopy proposals.