The study would receive the usual intense monitoring by NIH personnel, and additionally the local Investigational Review Board, which happens to be located one floor below that where the study would be performed. This seems to be a variation of the old chestnut that one has to have a job to get a job. To say that this study contains elements beyond my expertise is unfounded, unsubstantiated, and inaccurate. As a faculty member of two universities at an undergraduate, graduate, and professional level, and with personal recommendations from two distinguished chairmen of university departments of pharmacy for this study, I had hoped not to be disparaged in this manner. One critic upbraided me for inclusion of an anecdote that suggested Cannabis was no better than standard pharmaceutical for one patient.
Nothing works for everyone.
That is called clinical variation, and inclusion of such information is required in a critical review of the subject in order for it to retain the kind of scientific objectivity that I am not applying in this document written for readers of the MAPS Bulletin. Inclusion criteria questioned One reviewer questioned selection criteria for patients. Each subject can be clinically examined prior to entry, and this has been sufficient for virtually all previous clinical headache protocols. Imaging studies for migraine patients are not always necessary. Another questioned whether 30 study subjects could be recruited.