So some guy on the internet says that a friend of a friend of a friend of his lost his mind on Ayahuasca? Based on schizophrenia rates, I suspect pretty much everyone even has a friend of a friend that might catalyze their latent schizophrenia through psychedelics. But, the idea that psychedelics cause mental illness in those that otherwise would have been fine is not supported by scientific evidence[1][2], only anecdotes.

[1] https://www.nature.com/news/no-link-found-between-psychedeli...

[2] http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/03/28/lsd-and-schizophreni...

[3]

The functional difference between 'causes schizophrenia' and 'triggers latent schizophrenia' to someone who is diagnosed with schizophrenia after ingesting ayahuasca is practically non-existent.

Sure, you can generalize that those with family members who have schizophrenia are at an increased risk of having it rear its head. However, not everyone with schizophrenia gets diagnosed nor do many people have detailed psychiatric evaluations of their relatives to make decisions off of.

I would agree with you if there are people with 'latent schizophrenia' that would never have it become active but for the drug use. But perhaps it's more like someone with a heart defect that dies after some physical exercise -- there was a latent defect that would have revealed itself sooner or later (and schizophrenia is generally diagnosed by one's mid to late 20's). Does the literature have a consensus on which is the case?

Presumably the person with latent schizophrenia would see it emerge at later date even if they didn't take psychedelics. If the drug is only making symptoms emerge earlier, the cost of the trip is only however many years of sanity you had left (say, 5) rather than a lifetime of sanity (~65 years).

My understanding is that 'latent schizophrenia' is a term referring to the predisposition towards developing schizophrenia if certain environmental, social or other stressors trigger it.

It may never truly manifest itself as schizophrenia because of the lack of non-genetic factors involved in the illness.

The nature of schizophrenia isn't that genetics will absolutely determine whether or not someone will develop the disease. One can be diagnosed with prodromal schizophrenia and, with proper intervention, will never be diagnosed as schizophrenic or experience those symptoms again.

To say that the drugs will make symptoms emerge earlier instead of later in life isn't entirely accurate. Those symptoms may _never_ emerge at all, given the right circumstances.

It seems that the 'right circumstances' for those with a predisposition towards developing schizophrenia include never ingesting certain types of drugs.

What’s the basis for your presumption?

A person who has "latent schizophrenia" would have quite possibly been "fine", had they not engaged in ingesting a substance that "catalyzes" their predisposed illness. There isn't a reliable way of measuring what would have happened to a group of "psychedelic casualties", had they not taken such substances.

Anecdote or not, and regardless of the causality argument, taking a substance can "catalyze" such conditions to use your wording. There are numerous accounts of people who truly were/are "never the same" after taking LSD or similar substances.

It's important for people to understand this, because of chicken vs. egg. If someone has such a predisposition and isn't aware of it, they might engage in ingesting such substances under the pretense that a substance cannot "cause" a mental illness, meanwhile believing there's no way they could have any such disposition. Contrarily, understanding that these chemicals absolutely are permanently-life altering, regardless of any pre-disposition, is probably the most important thing to consider when weighing pros vs. cons.

Speak to anyone who has taken LSD or similar. Whether good or bad, whether the person is mentally stable or not, the common thread is that changes in mentality/perception from taking these substances are permanent.

Not noticed any permanent changes from LSD (quite a lot of trips and a few heavy ones but nothing truly extreme like a full strip).

I can never as I only have my own experience but I think that a lot of "deep insights" and changes comes from people thinking that that is what should happen. Like when young teens get drunk from non-alcoholic beer.

I'm not saying it does not happen but I think it is rarer than people think it is and it is rare that a trip will introduce permanent change in someones behavior. I think that people feel that it was a great experience and say that now they will live their life differently but that they slowly just return to their normal life and behavior.

It is exceedingly common that a trip will alter a person's perceptions permanently. Such changes likely were the direct result of having taken the substance, and wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Without knowing your specific circumstances, another thing to consider is that it's possible that didn't have a scientific approach to measure the precise mass of LSD that you ingested for any or all of your trips. Perhaps you were "lucky" in the sense that you never (inadvertently) received an extra strong dose. And, your biochemistry might be more tolerant to LSD.

Dosage affects everyone differently, hence the current wisdom to play it safe by scaling up dosage systematically.

I have tripped around 20 times in total; most around 100-200 range with a few around the 300-500 range.

And while I can never know the actual dosages of it when you buy it the way you do my experiences are pretty consistent with how others report their experiences around those dosages.

I am however not a person who is deep into the philosophical aspects of hallucinogens so for me it is about having a pleasant experience and not to try and learning something about myself.

It could be that I'm one of the exceptions or that I don't realize it but to be honest as common as tripping is I don't see many changing their life or outlook after a trip.

We may have grown up in different eras. Everyone I know that has dosed is permanently different, and they all self-recognize this change as being permanent.

The idea that psychedelics are only harmful to people with "latent" schizophrenia is equally unsupported. It's an old canard that people with a one-sided view of these drugs keep repeating.

Hold up, I never said anything about schizophrenia nor did I say ayahuasca caused it.

The 2 articles you linked don’t mention ayahuasca at all. The active compound in ayahuasca is different from in LSD, mushrooms or mescaline. Show me a study done using ayahuasca that proves it has no link to mental illness.

It’s dangerous to dismiss negative anecdotes entirely. Take them as a warning in lieu of real studies being done.

Did any of the following apply?

> No current or past history of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, no Bipolar I or II disorder, and no first or second-degree (“A second-degree relative is defined as a blood relative which includes the individual’s grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces or half-siblings.”) relatives with these disorders.3

https://tripsafe.org/how-to-take-lsd/#1-avoid-with-certain-h...

For what it’s worth:

> “Since the early 1990s, approximately 2000 doses of psilocybin (ranging from low to high doses) have been safely administered to humans in the United States and Europe, in carefully controlled scientific settings, with no reports of any medical or psychiatric serious AEs, including no reported cases of prolonged psychosis or HPPD (Studerus et al., 2011).”1

https://tripsafe.org/shrooms/#2-the-safety-profile-of-shroom...

Psilocybin isn’t the same as ayahuasca or LSD but we’d expect it to have an extremely similar safety and adverse effect profile.

Sorry to hear that. If you don't mind me asking, out of curiosity, how old was he, what was his prior experiences with drugs and alcohol, and did he have any family history of schizophrenia or similar?

Mental problems like schizophrenia often develop during the ages people start experimenting with drugs (18-25), and while these things can certainly be catalysts, I think the science is still out as to whether such a person would have just developed the disease later on even without the bad trip.

He’s in his late 20s early 30s but I can’t speak to anything else about him or his family. Thanks for the info though.