It’s a rapidly growing and highly lucrative industry. I would always look carefully at the ‘conflict of interest’ section at the bottom of any paper - things that are company funded may not be too trustworthy although they still get published. Then things like sample size and methodology.

On the other side, at the moment there appear to be many potential applications of these plants (hemp/cannabis) and I’m happy so much investigation is going on. Many of these studies are generating initial data that will give hints as to whether it’s worth studying them in greater detail. So I Iook forward to any interesting discoveries that emerge - and the larger replicative studies that then back up the initial hypothesis with robust and reliable evidence.

I agree - to a point. European guidances specify though than plain language summaries must accompany results of clinical studies (accompany - not replace). This, along with the fact that an increasing number of journals are going fully or partially open access, indicates a trend towards improving access to scientific knowledge for the public. Because why should this knowledge be privileged? A significant proportion of it is after all publicly funded. And as the OP u/davotk has shown, lay summaries are quite easy to write if you have any experience in communications with lay audiences. Likewise, they should be fairly easy for the paper’s authors to write. I think this bridge to the generally public is a very important positive step in science communication, personally.

I get that the previous comment to which you were responding was unnecessarily snarky. But there is a grain of validity in there as well.

Your comment is making an erroneous assumption that all viruses are treated equally, when this couldn’t be further from the truth.

People are working hard on the finding a vaccine or other treatments for the HIV virus (and don’t forget we already have antiretrovirals and PrEP), and we are getting closer every day to a vaccine. There are many other diseases that are epidemic-scale that also do not yet have a cure (Alzheimer’s for example). HIV is an incredibly complex virus. Only ten years ago a friend of mine who is a biologist working in virology told me that a cure is impossible because of how it works, how it invades immune cells, how it mutates and how it can evade detection and lie dormant in ‘sleeper’ immune cells. However attitudes and forecasts have changed because biotech has come so far. Now the general feeling is that we will crack it, sooner or later.

It’s roasted cabbage

I actually think “hey.. look at that d” would work so well as a title. It’s ambitious, confronting us with our motives for looking, while also laying the artist’s motives bare. It’s “real” and thick with irony (- is that pretentious enough?)

That’s handy, thanks. I’ll pass it on to my ADHD friend who brought this up to me in the first place. The Big Issue article I cited above is from 2021, so I guess it is now out of date for England at least.

It’s not just about waiting times, but access to care, affordability of care, heath outcomes, etc. As far as I understand US is pretty bad when you combine such metrics

I’m not qualified to say, but here is a little more info:

https://www.bigissue.com/life/health/adhd-nhs-diagnosis-waiting-times-crisis/

I started looking into it as a friend told me this had happened to him. To my shame I didn’t believe it could be true at first (although I’m currently on an NHS referral waiting list myself and it’s 6 months). I believe this would vary quite considerably with region and healthcare authority though.

NHS is suffering right now due to chronic underfunding, piecemeal privatisation and increasing costs of care, and long waiting lists are a symptom of all of that. Very sad. NHS standard of care is excellent in general, but performs poorly on waiting times. I’d take it over private healthcare any day though.

What?

Three year waiting lists for ADHD referral currently. This is correct.