Finally getting around to watching this. I am always eager to watch presenters go through a Q&A because I think it kind of shows how they are when things aren't going according to the script, and I I especially liked how Dr. Begley came across in the Q&A segment here. Fair, open-minded, and, ultimately, very real. Thanks to everyone who set this event up, and thanks to CrossFit for keeping these lectures available for reference.

Great example and I particularly like the position of Dr. Glenn Begley on fraud v.s. laziness.  This is probably the best way to approach the scientific community if we want them to hear the message. 

Dr. Begler saying “It’s easier to get the results you want if you know what you’re looking for,” reminds me of the CrossFit Health Post on Coca-Cola funded research, in that Coke has control of the analysis of the research the fund. So we're coming full circle here, the entire community is strapped for cash and pushing out new findings is how you get it. Gone are the days of reproducing others' findings, it doesn't have the appeal and novelty that gets the research dollars. It's critical that findings can be reproducible, otherwise, they are not truly new findings, just one-off results do to randomness at best and bias at worst. 

Interesting piece. The treatment of depression is certainly an area where much improvement is needed and these results, if true, are disappointing and point to the need for improved treatment modalities. On the other hand, I wonder if “clinically detectable” is an appropriate measuring stick for the effect of a drug? Is it possible that an effect can be clinically *undetectable* yet still meaningful with respect to the course of the disease? Notably, the sensitivity and specificity of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale are 86.4% and 92.2%, respectively (according to the Psychiatry & Behavioral Health Learning Network). Though, certain populations show less diagnostic power (e.g., sensitivity and specificity of post-stroke depression were found to be 78.1% and 74.6%, respectively per https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033318202703666).

Finally, the discordance between perceived benefits from the patient versus clinician perspectives underscores the influence of bias, perhaps indicating how one's role in the care process can influence their interpretation of treatment. Note that the Hamilton Depression Rating scale is observer-rated (not patient-rated). 

I applaud the authors for continuing to investigate the efficacy of these treatments after a strong statement like Dr. Pariante from the Royal College of Psychiatrists saying the Cipriani et al. study, “finally puts to bed the controversy on antidepressants, clearly showing that these drugs do work in lifting mood and helping most people with depression,” (as stated in the Frontiers article referenced in this post).

We were lucky enough to have been able to see Dr. Begley's revealing (and sadly troubling) talk. It's a clear, concise, and up close examination of the mess that is medical/pharmaceutical/nutritional research that points the finger where it belongs -- at the publish or perish system that fuel the scientific equivalent of Gresham's Law: bad science drives out good. 

Could anyone tell me how to practice on my hand stand? And what are the l-site variations as i am new here? 

I love rest. Rest is good.