| Lab Website | everydayethicslab.ca |
Tonight at 6pm, we're hosting a discussion about Challenging #Stigma in #Mentalhealth as a Family Member. Tune in for an engaging conversation featuring @[email protected], @[email protected] and other experts: https://fb.me/e/3eTBTftDE
Have you participated in a clinical trial involving #psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy? How has life been after the trial? @[email protected] would love to speak with you about your experiences.
Contact [email protected] for more information.
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/eddietalksdrugs/status/1618970842536505344
“Have you participated in a clinical trial involving #psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy? How has life been after the trial? @eddietalksdrugs would love to speak with you about your experiences. Contact [email protected] for more information.”
Really honoured to be part of this important conversation about #stigma and mental health.
#CAMHFAC & #FamilyResourceCentre hosts a Facebook Live event Jan31: Challenging Stigma as a Family Member.
#DonnaAlexander @[email protected] #StephenLincoln @[email protected] will discuss stigma & how we, as family members, can normalize conversations about mental health @[email protected]
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/VictorySpeaks7/status/1618279639558025217
“#CAMHFAC & #FamilyResourceCentre hosts a Facebook Live event Jan31: Challenging Stigma as a Family Member. #DonnaAlexander @DanielZBuchman #StephenLincoln @VictorySpeaks7 will discuss stigma & how we, as family members, can normalize conversations about mental health @CAMHnews”
#CAMHFAC & #FamilyResourceCentre hosts a Facebook Live event Jan31: Challenging Stigma as a Family Member.
#DonnaAlexander @[email protected] #StephenLincoln @[email protected] will discuss stigma & how we, as family members, can normalize conversations about mental health @[email protected]
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/VictorySpeaks7/status/1618279639558025217
“#CAMHFAC & #FamilyResourceCentre hosts a Facebook Live event Jan31: Challenging Stigma as a Family Member. #DonnaAlexander @DanielZBuchman #StephenLincoln @VictorySpeaks7 will discuss stigma & how we, as family members, can normalize conversations about mental health @CAMHnews”
Our statement on the devastating events in Monterey Park. #StopAAPIHate
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/StopAAPIHate/status/1617221230805016577
Ugh- can we please not make this the convention? It's needless hype and further obscures the contributions of authors in the training data. Oh, and just think about the precedent it sets for royalties-bearing writing. I guess OpenAI gets a cut?
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/SScottGraham_/status/1613571445233225728
“Ugh- can we please not make this the convention? It's needless hype and further obscures the contributions of authors in the training data. Oh, and just think about the precedent it sets for royalties-bearing writing. I guess OpenAI gets a cut?”
📢 New publication in @[email protected] 📢
Cannabis companies and the sponsorship of scientific research: A cross-sectional Canadian case study 🇨🇦
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0280110
Will be of interest to folks interested in #bioethics #conflictofinterest #COI #CDOH
🧵Below 1/8
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/DanielZBuchman/status/1613015839204147200
Corporations across sectors engage in the conduct, sponsorship, and dissemination of scientific research. Industry sponsorship of research, however, is associated with research agendas, outcomes, and conclusions that are favourable to the sponsor. The legalization of cannabis in Canada provides a useful case study to understand the nature and extent of the nascent cannabis industry’s involvement in the production of scientific evidence as well as broader impacts on equity-oriented research agendas. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, meta-research study to describe the characteristics of research that reports funding from, or author conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. From May to August 2021, we sampled licensed, prominent Canadian cannabis companies, identified their subsidiaries, and searched each company name in the PubMed conflict of interest statement search interface. Authors of included articles disclosed research support from, or conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. We included 156 articles: 82% included at least one author with a conflict of interest and 1/3 reported study support from a Canadian cannabis company. More than half of the sampled articles were not cannabis focused, however, a cannabis company was listed amongst other biomedical companies in the author disclosure statement. For articles with a cannabis focus, prevalent topics included cannabis as a treatment for a range of conditions (15/72, 21%), particularly chronic pain (6/72, 8%); as a tool in harm reduction related to other substance use (10/72, 14%); product safety (10/72, 14%); and preclinical animal studies (6/72, 8%). Demographics were underreported in empirical studies with human participants, but most included adults (76/84, 90%) and, where reported, predominantly white (32/39, 82%) and male (49/83, 59%) participants. The cannabis company-funded studies included people who used drugs (37%) and people prescribed medical cannabis (22%). Canadian cannabis companies may be analogous to peer industries such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and food in the following three ways: sponsoring research related to product development, expanding indications of use, and supporting key opinion leaders. Given the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is ample opportunity to create a policy climate that can mitigate the harms of criminalization as well as impacts of the “funding effect” on research integrity, research agendas, and the evidence base available for decision-making, while promoting high-priority and equity-oriented independent research.
📢 New publication in @[email protected] 📢
Cannabis companies and the sponsorship of scientific research: A cross-sectional Canadian case study 🇨🇦
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0280110
Will be of interest to folks interested in #bioethics #conflictofinterest #COI #CDOH
🧵Below 1/8
Corporations across sectors engage in the conduct, sponsorship, and dissemination of scientific research. Industry sponsorship of research, however, is associated with research agendas, outcomes, and conclusions that are favourable to the sponsor. The legalization of cannabis in Canada provides a useful case study to understand the nature and extent of the nascent cannabis industry’s involvement in the production of scientific evidence as well as broader impacts on equity-oriented research agendas. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, meta-research study to describe the characteristics of research that reports funding from, or author conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. From May to August 2021, we sampled licensed, prominent Canadian cannabis companies, identified their subsidiaries, and searched each company name in the PubMed conflict of interest statement search interface. Authors of included articles disclosed research support from, or conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. We included 156 articles: 82% included at least one author with a conflict of interest and 1/3 reported study support from a Canadian cannabis company. More than half of the sampled articles were not cannabis focused, however, a cannabis company was listed amongst other biomedical companies in the author disclosure statement. For articles with a cannabis focus, prevalent topics included cannabis as a treatment for a range of conditions (15/72, 21%), particularly chronic pain (6/72, 8%); as a tool in harm reduction related to other substance use (10/72, 14%); product safety (10/72, 14%); and preclinical animal studies (6/72, 8%). Demographics were underreported in empirical studies with human participants, but most included adults (76/84, 90%) and, where reported, predominantly white (32/39, 82%) and male (49/83, 59%) participants. The cannabis company-funded studies included people who used drugs (37%) and people prescribed medical cannabis (22%). Canadian cannabis companies may be analogous to peer industries such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and food in the following three ways: sponsoring research related to product development, expanding indications of use, and supporting key opinion leaders. Given the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is ample opportunity to create a policy climate that can mitigate the harms of criminalization as well as impacts of the “funding effect” on research integrity, research agendas, and the evidence base available for decision-making, while promoting high-priority and equity-oriented independent research.
@[email protected] & @[email protected] 's chapter 'Living and Dying on the Streets: Providing Palliative Care during a Pandemic' in #DisplacementCity is a must read for all. You ask: homeless ppl receiving palliative care? Yes.....2
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/cathyacrowe/status/1611779042901991430
