Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
Argument fallacies:
* your anecdotal positive experiences
* suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
* referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
* suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
> referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any
You just did the same, didn't you?
> Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.
That's equivalent to how drugs are produced by the way. They produce the drug and then mix it with something inert fx.
> your anecdotal positive experiences
He transparently identifies his a.p.ex. as such. Then it's not a fallacy ... It's an experience. And I like to read about those and do not appreciate condescending replies like yours OTOH.
No, the side effects are readily available and specific factual data. If you asked ten people to figure out what they were you'd get ten very similar answers.
"Mistakes from the past" on the other hand was completely without context that would point anyone to do better than guess what was being referenced.
You're still owing at least one example for this statement.
What side effects do you get from shrooms that you don't get from pure psilocin or one of its prodrugs?
https://psychedelicreview.com/the-serotonin-receptors-compar...
https://www.reddit.com/r/researchchemicals/comments/51sbpf/h...
Just google "4 aco dmt nausea" and you'll find more reports than Anne Jones can read in a week.
If you want to learn more about the reasons then serotonin receptors and their distribution in your body would be a place to start your investigation.
I challenge you to attempt to prove your assertion with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are objectively incorrect.
And then, in light of that realization, perhaps there may be value in reviewing and contemplating, at length, your earlier statement:
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
It would seem that at least some people think Nausea is a problem.
Challenge: "I know this statement is false, because I've read thousands of discussions. I challenge you to attempt to prove your assertion with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are objectively incorrect."
Response (from the claimant, thus far): <null>
Reply (third party): "It would seem that at least some people think Nausea is a problem."
Key distinguishing phrases: "just about every", "some"
Result: Downvote the person who speaks precisely, and objectively correctly.
To those who disagree, first consider how one might physically implement a test of the initial assertion: "You will find <x> or <y> in ~every <discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms>".
Might this work: [CountOf forum posts for <DateRange>] - [CountOf forum posts containing keywords for <DateRange>]
Does it seem likely that CountOfKeywordHits / CountOfTotalPosts is going to be up in the range of ~"just about every"? I'm guessing no.
Consequence: Here is where my point lies. If people on HN can't be bothered to not only speak/read accurately and precisely, but punish (downvote, vilify, throttle, stonewall) those who do so (or advocate for such ideas), what might be the general quality of ideas that get persisted in people's minds as a consequence of reading the information that exists in such an environment?
And if this is happening on HN, imagine what the state of affairs is on other platforms (Reddit, Facebook, the media, etc). Now, compare this idea ("facts" that people consume are often literally incorrect) to the current level of ~"general understanding" the broader public seems to exhibit when it comes to the "accurate understanding of relevant facts related to what is going on", across a wide range of important topics (something that seems to come up in discussion, now and then). Might some correlations appear?
And if we looked a bit harder, might a plausibly causative relationship be observable, to some degree? Does the idea that people's internal mental model is affected by the quality of information they consume seem implausible, or controversial? Or, does this perhaps vary based on which (out)group of people we're talking about?
But wait...how true is "facts that people consume are often literally incorrect"? This seems like a rather extraordinary claim. And you know what they say about extraordinary claims!
Again, consider how one might physically implement a test of this extraordinary assertion? Not so simple as doing a keyword search this time. I know of no AI that could do it. Maybe it would require a manual analysis. So, here's an interesting idea: let's say one was to go through this entire thread, and tag each post with a boolean or score indicating the epistemic soundness of claims made within it.
Heck, while we're at it, what others dimensions might yield some interesting output? And if we're going to do one thread, why not do 5 or 10, picking topics from a variety of subject areas, including ones that are bound to be controversial, but are simultaneously extremely important public matters (environment, pandemics, politics, tax policy, etc), where the concerns of people who advocate for old-fashioned ideas like high quality discourse, precision in speech and interpretation, and intellectual honesty, can't be so easily dismissed/framed as stupid, a waste of time, invoking flame wars, "gish-galloping", etc.
So, considering this scenario, what would an analysis of actual written words, consistently interpreted in accordance with the HN guidelines, reveal to us of what is going on in our community? If we did the same thing in other communities, what might we find there? How confident is everyone here that our sense-making is so much superior to that of the <various outgroups> that are commonly mocked for their "lack of intelligence", and tendency to "believe whatever they uncritically read online"? I for one would like to find this out. I wonder if anyone else would. I wonder if anyone cares.
But enough gish-galloping for one day. I imagine I'm just concerned about nothing, things are really not all that bad out in the real world. Most likely, everything is not only mostly under control, but getting better on a daily basis. And besides, it's not like any of this is our responsibility. No, every problem that does exist in the world is someone else's fault. The world isn't what we make of it, it is what the others make of it. As it has always been, and as it will always be.
(This looks like another assertion! But I digress.)
I don't recall saying that. In fact, my actual words convey the exact opposite meaning (at least to my interpretation):
>> I challenge you to attempt to [prove] your [assertion] with evidence. If you make an attempt, you will quickly realize that you are [objectively incorrect].
Perhaps something was lost in translation along the way? Having a very open mind, I am a big believer that such ambitious things (and many more!) are possible, but such optimistic ideas seem to not be very popular nowadays. Under certain scenarios at least.
But anyways....are you sure?
I can agree, at least not with the explicit specifications we currently have. But then again, it wasn't my assertion, so why is it I who must bear the burden of these shortcomings? Does that seems fair? Or, am I looking at it wrong?
Here is how I would approach this sort of a problem - I like to first put on my thinking cap, and think, much as one might do when writing code at work.
The assertion: "You'll [find] [nausea and vomiting] in [[just about] [every] [discussion]] [about consuming psilocybin mushrooms]."
I've added some highlights around words and phrases, in an attempt to facilitate more precise communication over this limited medium.
Let's try this:
private bool isJustAboutEvery (int subjectHitCount, int totalDiscussionCount ) {
return ( (subjectHitCount / totalDiscussionCount) > .8 );
}
Wait a minute. I've arbitrarily decided what the interpretation of "just about every" is. Who do I think I am!!!
We can't look it up, because there's no commonly accepted meaning. What to do!
Well, how about this:
private bool isJustAboutEvery (int subjectHitCount, int totalDiscussionCount, int percentageCutoff ) {
return ( (subjectHitCount / totalDiscussionCount) > ( percentageCutoff / 100 );
}
Now, you and @colechristensen can decide among yourselves what an acceptable value is for [percentageCutoff] - I'm not concerned about that aspect of it.
> But you can't win the argument [that nausea and vomiting isn't a concern] by saying that the use of "just about every discussion" is wrong...
100% correct, and I am in complete agreement.
> ...and if you've decided to focus on that aspect [you've now switched the topic].
Oh? Is it I who've switched the topic? (Also...is this yet another assertion? Oh, never mind.)
By my reading of this thread, it seems to me that that assertion was higher up in the thread. Specifically, here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22921923
...and I addressed it here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22923036
(You may also note that I received no response to my rebuttal. But I did receive a downvote, so that's something!)
The assertion we are actually dealing with in this sub-thread, is: "You'll find nausea and vomiting in just about every discussion about consuming psilocybin mushrooms."
Perhaps I should have explicitly quoted the assertion so as to minimize that possibility for misinterpretation. I will try to be more precise in the future. But then on the other hand, being precise seems (as far as I can tell, which is not very well judging by voting and responses) to be not terribly popular around here, despite it being a forum consisting of a high concentration of developers.
> I doubt very much the original author intended that to be a scientific fact, and more of a expression of its prevalence.
Is this my fault as well? If no meaning can be accurately derived from a statement, and reasonable inferences are not allowed, then what is the point of engaging in conversations at all using this language? Just for fun? (And I mean that question literally.)
It's an experience which we have no reason to think is representative.
> Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.
How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?
I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?
That's the very nature of "experiences" and some might argue precisely the point of describing those.
> How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?
Never said that. Do you even know what you mean by "pill" in this context?
> I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?
Maybe you should read the article first?
"Psilocybin mushrooms have been found to have minimal harmful effects and could potentially benefit those with depression."
They want to reproduce a mushroom trip - not a trip based on individual psychoactive substances.
It's also why we need controlled experiments.
> Never said that. Do you even know what you mean by "pill" in this context?
Of course I do: A pill with a controlled amount of the active ingredients and a neutral binder.
> Maybe you should read the article first?
Maybe you should stop trying to condescend to me and answer the question?
> They want to reproduce a mushroom trip
Obviously not. They want to treat mental disorders.
Such as? It tastes bad? Mild gastrointestinal effects (which can happen with various psychedelic substances even without ingesting the fungus scaffolding)?
> suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Obviously something being natural does not make it better. Neither does something synthetic mean it's superior. Additionally, this probably comes from marinol/dronabinol - while marijuana has one of the best safety profiles of any substances, extracted THC does not.
Organic magic mushrooms have an exceptionally high (physical) safety profile (see Nutt et al, the Lancet 2007) whereas the same is not true for extracted psilocin. It's a bit ironic you're calling him out for fallacies while committing some yourself.
Plus, how do you know what other ingredients are in the mushrooms?
Otherwise, we're being extremely unwise, and setting ourselves up for serious problems later.
When someone fails to do that and proceeds to pick apart minutia I consider that a waste of time - quite interesting that you consider that the highest standard of discussion and sound reasoning.
> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
True. However, are these negative side effects significant enough that purified psilocybin is a necessity, in all cases?
If so, what are these negative side effects, and is there significant net evidence (that includes degree of ~harm) sufficient to form a strong conclusion that purified psilocybin is a necessity, that does not also include personal opinions/judgements of persons other than an informed patient?
> Dosage is important.
Sure, to a degree.
However, is there sufficient net evidence that dosage precision (above that which can be achieved via simpler approaches) necessitates the usage of purified psilocybin?
If so, can you link this evidence?
> There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
See above.
> Argument fallacies:
> * your anecdotal positive experiences
When dealing with compounds whose effects are extremely phenomenological and inconsistent/variable between applications, anecdotal experiences seem not only valid, but mandatory for proper scientific study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_experience#Basic_p...
> * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Framing advocacy for traditional, simple, affordable, and well-tested approaches as ~"illogical appeals to nature" is also a fallacy, and can be worse. (Not saying you're personally doing this, just as you aren't accusing anyone in particular for the fallacies you have listed).
> * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
Perfectly fine. But let's not pretend all sides in debates aren't often guilty of this sort of behavior.
> * suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Implying that a long track record of success is irrelevant is also a fallacy, as is framing a reference to this track record as "fallacious".
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
I would suggest you rethink whether that accusation is objectively true, based on the literal words written, as opposed to your subconscious mind's interpretation of the words.
I would also suggest you rethink the quality and validity of your ~rejection of the parent's relatively innocuous suggestion, and also contemplate whether this level of thinking and discourse is appropriate for the gravity of the topic being discussed, and consistent with the principles of objective rationality and truthfulness this forum proclaims to uphold.
What seems likely is that they're very potent tools to change how the mind works, possibly for the better if used in the right way.
Upon what specific past information consumption activities, and in what quantities, do you base this claim (and others)?
I pose this question literally, not rhetorically. You've exhibited significant self-confidence and strong judgement of others, it seems fair that you are held to the same standard.
I have a feeling you have less knowledge in this domain than you think.
It's not the scientists' approach that is wrong, it's the legislators...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_controlled_by_the_UK_Mis...
To use a still of any capacity to distil alcohol such as spirits, you must have an excise manufacturer licence.
Severe penalties apply for manufacturing spirits without an excise manufacturer licence.[1]
Although, in practice, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a case of someone being fined for making spirits at home, and you’d probably have to repeatedly offend that particular law in order to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
1. https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-and-excise-equivalent...
I'm a home-brewer, and have cold-distilled a couple of things (you can get up to about 22% that way IIRC), but I'm good with it being a little difficult to get started distilling, from a safety standpoint.
If you screw up home canning, you can get botulism, which can very easily kill you and anyone else who consumes it. Same if you simply store some home-made garlic olive oil in your refrigerator.
Cook beans wrong and you could get very sick or even die. Cooking on a gas stove could result in your house catching on fire, or at least you could severely burn yourself or someone else.
Use power tools wrong and you could get maimed or killed, or maim or kill someone else.
Climb a ladder or walk in to a shower and you can fall and die.
Riding a bike wrong could result in yourself or others getting killed.
Yet few would argue that any of these things be made illegal to be done by amateurs at home because of the risks they pose and the fact that people have killed themselves or others doing them.
Why should making alcohol or any other drug be any different?
Distilled alcohol with a cut of methanol will make for a very sad day for anyone who imbibes.
You can use certified distillery to make spirit from home grown fruit and pay taxes (although not as much as for commercial alcohol). This spirit is used for personal use only and could not be sold.
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clear.
It's not allowed to serve people that is "visibly intoxicated" but almost no one cares. At a normal Friday and Saturday night, Oslo is a battlefield of shitfaced people.
Strictly speaking the same is true in the UK, but lol.
Section 141 of the Licensing Act 2003:
"(1) A person [...] commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly—
(a) sells or attempts to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or
(b) allows alcohol to be sold to such a person.
[...]
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
Where "level 3 on the standard scale" is £1,000.
Also not everyone enjoys the taste of mushrooms or truffles. And psychedelic entities don't care whether they are coming from naturally occurring or synthesized psylocibin ;)
Also, humility and appreciation come in different shapes: for example I recall that Shulgin never consumed his pure psychedelics with juice because he could distinguish 'chemical' tastes and had appreciation for that
Last time I did this, I could barely hold it down long enough to have some effects. I felt 100x better when it exited my body, but I only had some mild "breathing walls" effects.
It doesn't help that I tell restaurants I'm allergic to mushrooms because I really, REALLY hate them, and they won't take me seriously otherwise. (And they're in almost everything, especially "vegan" stuff (which I like, without being vegan))
I have been blessed with a good source on.. ahem.. another source of psilocybin, without any taste. That works!
This is something you want if you are going to press this into pills at a certain dose and give to people for psychiatric disorders, not for people looking to go on spiritual journeys or see a phish concert.
The commodification of medicine troubles me--I prefer the perspective of sacred medicine. It goes roughly definitionally / tautologically: if something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition. The idea of medicine as a mechanism has really lost something intimate and special, compared to the idea of medicine as divine.
Let me explain in two different ways why this is wrong.
First, because we are after all a site full of programmers, let me put this in terms of prepositional logic: A => B is different from B => A. If I tell you "all doctors are humans" (let's assume this is true, for the sake of the example), accepting that proposition does not then imply "all humans are doctors".
Second, from a philosophical/rhetorical perspective: you are using two different definitions of "sacred" and acting like they're the same. There's the one by which, if something heals you it is sacred (a consequential reading, where "sacredness" has to do with the value of healing). Then there's the one where if something is sacred it heals you (a deontological/aesthetic reading, where "sacredness" is an attribute inherent to an act regardless of its consequences). Acting like the two are the same leads you into a trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
I'm aware of how logic works, I have a degree in mathematics. I did not intend to use A=>B as a reason that B=>A; I was using both as self-evidential statements.
I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes. In this way of thinking, there is no medicine that is not sacred. This operates more or less as an axiom, though they would probably not describe it that way. Because axiom implies an inflexibility and rigidity not intended... I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
If you're already formulating your rebuttal, please arrest the thought because I haven't really made any point yet. I'm just laying out the groundwork, describing how other cultures think about life.
I guess the one question I would ask you relates to your final statement.
>trap of assuming that because something is moral/sacred/good, its consequences must also be good. This is not so.
I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred? If you refuse to believe in those things, or refuse to conceptually work with things you've never personally experienced, that is your choice. But I think you should identify that bias as driving your argumentation, and maybe take a step back if you have not had an experience in this realm. You wouldn't try to describe Italy if you'd never set foot in Italy, would you?
They are not.
> I'm talking about a completely different premise / system of thinking about medicine that I learned from several Indian / Native American tribal attitudes.
This is the whitest sentence I have ever read on this website. And it's a very white website.
> I don't think "sacred medicine" means "You can use however much of this substance in whatever fashion you choose and always have positive results." There are additional rules, guidelines, and best practices to consider, always. But if something brings you connection, warmth, healing, new awareness, humility, love for others, rapport with the Earth, insight into your life, etc, then we generally call that "sacred", and we also call it "medicine", even if the thing in question is just having a conversation, watching a dog play in the sunshine, or smelling the scents on the breeze. Sacred medicine.
Okay. And what are those rules, guidelines, and best practices for magic mushrooms? Because let me tell you, most people's experience of grabbing a shroom or two and eating them does not come with the kinds of structure you see in, say, ayahuasca practices.
You're acting like the preliminary scientific results - of improvement in mental health - come from following a centuries-long native tradition. They don't. They come from the haphazard practices of white California hippies over the last 80 years or so.
> I find this silly. Of course you can have too much of a good thing, or use a good thing in a way that is ignorant of the larger system around it and end up doing harm. But are you sure you're not really trying to "refute" the existence of the spiritual, or of the sacred?
I'm not trying to refute the existence of the spiritual. I'm trying to refute your very specific loading in this thread of a wide variety of psilocybin practices, mostly arrived at for convenience in the last several decades, with sacredness and with traditional imprimatur.
No opinion on the article or yours but where are you getting this opinion? Why or how, do psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys.
Not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it. There is noting scientific about what you're suggesting that I'm aware about as well.
Having a mental disorder is a pretty miserable existence, in several different ways. Anything that could reasonably be described as a spiritual experience will bring you a sense of wonder, fun, release, enlightenment, excitement, new perspective, added insight about your life, and a sense of connection to others or the Earth or the cosmos. I have difficulty believing that those things will not help people with psychiatric disorders. Everyone needs those things and I cannot take seriously any assertions to the contrary.
I also have difficulty accepting your statement that "not all people believe in spiritual journeys or are capable of it." Some people don't believe in fun? Some people don't believe in healing, in excitement? I have met some of those people but I do not think we should consider that level of disconnection with life as anything but a terrible tragedy. And that we should try to find ways to connect with those people, bring a little fun and joy into those people's lives if we feel able and willing to do so.
It's kind of like, not all people believe in eating food, and those people are in serious danger and need our help.
I also don't think the spiritual journey aspect should be dismissed so lightly. Its being investigated to help depression. Perhaps inducing a "spiritual" state in people is part of the cause of action of the drug.
I appreciated your comment overall but this statement stood out to me. May I ask what guided this choice of words? Why would you have an opinion on it one way or the other?
The main reason i included it was because psybin's comment which i was responding to was very dismissive of "spirituality", and i think there is still valid things to talk about related to spiritual "journeys" regardless of if you think there is some metaphysical force you are connecting to, or if you believe its simply a drug-induced altered state.
Isn't the defining feature of a mystical experience that the participant feels that they had one (its a concept about subjective internal states, not an objective thing to measure beyond i guess self-reported surveys). Given that its going to be self reported anyways, i think the general acedotes about psilocybin inducing spirtual "states" is pretty compelling.
Anyways, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772431/ is a study on the effect of psilocybin induced mystical experiences.
See also, Marsh Chapel Experiment:
"Religious delusions" are a frequent component of schizophrenia.
Clearly more research is needed in this space if we are ever to reason about it in a scientific context.
Quick Qwant search should turn up loads.
Based on extensive reading in the community, I would say overwhelmingly yes. To what degree this derives directly from the substance, versus an "unlocking" of thinking modalities that already exist but are dormant (or not normally consciously perrceivable) is interesting and worth study, but disciplined, logical thinking is not something you'll find much of in the scene. And that's ok, but only to a degree.
> Perhaps they aren't as safe as is believed.
What most anyone believes about safety or any other attributes seems almost certainly to be quite far off the mark.
Just like science cannot claim to hold an opinion on a phenomenon it has not studied, logic should have no opinion on the great sea of life that happens outside formal systems. Should I spend my time by the river or walking among the trees? There's no strictly logical general answer. You can say, "It's thunderstorming, you shouldn't be outside at all," but that presupposes that I care about surviving. If I do not share that axiom ie I want to live as the wild, and brave the storm with my body in danger, that's not strictly speaking illogical. It's just not your logic. The logic does not share the same axioms but may be perfectly consistent unto itself.
I couldn't agree more, particularly the highlighted part. When one gets into these realms, logic is not only not very useful, it is often extremely harmful, because it too will provide answers that are (to my way of thinking anyways), objectively incorrect. To a person using strictly logic (or so they think, unaware of their hidden axioms, or even what an axiom is), their beliefs appear to be facts, and perfectly logical ones at that. Examples are things like the "right" political system, the "right" economic system, the "right" way to raise a child, the "right" way to distribute income, and so on.
And it's hard to blame people if you spend some time seriously thinking about it - almost from the day a child is born, it is subjected to massive amounts of psychological influence (training their mental model): beliefs forced upon them by their parents, their culture, their religion, their teachers, their friends, etc. As they grow older, eventually they enter the adult world where there are also career pressures, relationship pressures, consumption of massive amounts of propaganda ("facts" to non-crazy people) via multiple different (but coordinated) channels, typically repeating and reinforcing all these prior beliefs, driving the "hooks" deeper and deeper into their mind. It's no wonder the world seems like a madhouse right now, and how it is so difficult to get someone to break through the walls that have been built around their mind. It can be done, but logic is not the tool for the job. As the saying goes, you can't change someone's beliefs using logic, if logic was not used to form those beliefs.
As far as axioms (and likely even logic) go, I bet you and I are quite highly aligned. And where we're not, I doubt we'd have much trouble seeing each other's point of view. But that's just my intuition!
How do misunderstandings such as this one arise? In this case, my guess would be:
- in this community, I speak almost exclusively using logic, and "extremist" logic at that (I believe there is a time and place for it) - assuming this is my only mode is perfectly natural (logical).
- my above comments regarding "I wonder if this type of thinking[1] is a side effect of dmt et al" could very easily be misinterpreted negatively. And I guess, parts of them are. In my experience in various plant medicine and spiritualist communities, there seems to be an excess of conformist, woo woo, excessively optimistic thinking (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). When a rationalist is exposed to this the first time, it can be quite a shock. But as I spent more time and got to know several people closely, you start to find out what the real deal is (again, in my experiences). Much of it can be posing, conformity, hypocritical, and various other negative behaviors, which are completely counter to anything I've ever heard from the true gurus, who advise having an open and free mind, etc. So this would be one negative opinion I hold on the community as it practices, as opposed to what the "proper" principles are.
I believe that if we are ever to sort out the mess we've created on this planet, a way must be found for these people to communicate with each other. Sure, many people can do this already, but not very many, and certainly not enough to do the trick. I see this as the problem of the 21st, before all others, because it is a root cause of all the other problems that get attention on TV. Whether this ongoing and growing disharmony is completely accidental is a very controversial question, something only a "conspiracy theorist" would believe so they say, but I am a proud, card carrying member of the camp that believes no, this amount of consistent disharmony is not accidental, not at all. How would one ever learn that answer to a question such as that? Any ideas?
[1] Examples from the grandparent comment: "Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul", "If something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition."
It's an emperor's new clothes problem.
Why are trials and research concentrating on this prodrug like it's necessary is beyond my understanding . It's a waste of money and time
Unfortunately this type of drug preparation is not that fashionable. One example of this is the total extract of St. John's Wort, which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases, but doctors often prefer to prescribe the latter (presumably because a plant based medicine doesn't sound as powerful?).
Oh boy, yet another claim without references.
(https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-st-johns-wort/a...)
Synthetic antidepressants are by no means completely benign drugs, so having something that can be as effective for mild to moderate depression with a different side effect profile is really useful.
Since you could easily have found this and many more sources, including all of the original studies, with a few Google searches, I'm taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.
> which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases
Then justify this with:
> some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants
(X > Y) != (X = Y) or in plain English, what you cite does not support your claim.
> with a few Google searches
You make the claim, you provide the references.
> taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.
I support what works regardless of origin. No person who has experienced severe depression would discard something that worked. I don't have time for idiots who presume 'natural' = 'better' though.
Those like you who have the blessing of decent mental health and do not understand - seem quite unwilling to understand in many cases - that those such as me who have to deal with this shit for all their lives can be deeply and negatively affected by you lot posting garbage.
If it were a physical disease such as cancer you might be a lot less inclined to do it as you see the immediate link, from lack of proven efficacy to a fatal outcome.
Mental unhealth, though, seems fair game to you. You are insulated from the negative consequences of your idiotic prognostications so you posting crap is like giving a child matches to play with in someone else's house. Not your house, not your house fire, not your problem.
Please grow a little humanity and understanding; it's not a game for us, it can go from our lives made difficult, to our lives irretrievably wrecked.
I started looking into St. John's wort more closely because I saw the positive experiences that people close to me had with it. It's not all just theory to me.
All that said, if you are really interested in the topic you should probably not listen to me but rather look at the actual studies that were done with it. I came away from that convinced that it's at least worth a shot for mild to medium cases of depression, and that it is underused relative to the synthetic alternatives.
Do this for me: suppose someone's taking prozac for depression. Given that St. John's Wort is also an antidepressant, how well would it work to have someone take both at the same time? How much will they complement each other?
Please answer that WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP, just based on common sense and logic. I'll explain why.
First the why would I. Because if you are in that state, anything's worth a try. My naive logic was if you stack antidepressants you get more effect. Yea, well, not the way I intended.
Prozac is an SSRI, StJW is an MAOI. SSRI + MAOI = serotonin event. I was lucky not to end up in hospital.
St. John's Wort has possible side effects including photosensitivity and eye problems (glaucoma or cataracts, can't remember). You can't say which is best or better, or even recommend anything except on an individual level. You can't talk about 'best' or 'better' except on an average level and you really need to understand what's appropriate for the individual patient. For example, if someone's struggling on prozac with the side effects then why not have them come off and try SJWort? What have they got to lose?
Quite a lot if things go wrong. The prozac has to clear from your system (weeks at least) and SJW may not work - so go back to prozac, no problem right?
But going back to prozac may not work - when you come off antidepressents and go back onto them, sometimes they don't work again. Unusual bit it happens. That is a really terrifying prospect if you have depression, so you may (as I did) choose to continue with bad side effects of prozac rather than take the chance (assuming the person is even aware this can happen). The alternative is too horrible.
So what I'm saying is I quite agree SJW may be a valid treatment but there's too much complexity involved for a layman to recommend anything. By all means suggest they talk to their doctor (or pharmacist) about it, and educate them as far as you can, but don't push any treatment, it's just too complex and risky a topic without decent knowledge.
To those of you complaining about dosage you can take a representative sample of a batch, grind it up, and test it for potency via GC/MS. Same way it's done in cannabis. For cannabis edibles we have an allowable range of 4.9-5.1mg/dose on a serving labeled 5mg. I'm pretty sure we can nail 1000mg doses of psilocybin pretty accurately.
(Granted, it's been years since I last ate magic mushrooms. I loved the way they tasted, but I don't think it's fair for someone who doesn't like they way they taste to have to gag them down just for a trip. I can still remember how they tasted, and the wonderful visions I had.)
Mushrooms also don't store well.
Extracting psilocybin so it can be served in a more palatable and easily stored form is a good thing.
If they're still hard to consume, shred them and extract into tea. Psilocybin is water soluble. Some like to add lemon juice, as it supposedly hurries the conversion of psilocybin to active psilocin (not sure how true this is). Tastes a little different but is relatively quite palatable.
> Granted, it's been years since I last ate magic mushrooms. I loved the way they tasted
Yes, we absolutely SHOULD be extracting and studying psilocybin and all of the ways it interacts with our brain. With any luck, we can pinpoint the extremely beneficial parts of the drug and create new synthetic compounds that aren't rife with the normal side effects of a psychedelic experience. Perhaps we'll be able to give this new compound to people with mental disabilities or conditions which would prevent them from taking a psychedelic of kind. Or if it was safe enough, it might make an entire class of SSRIs obsolete as mushrooms have a beneficial effect on those of us with anxiety and depression. I have anxiety, and while micro-dosing every day would probably solve that problem, a whole host of side effects comes along for the ride that wouldn't really be great for things like my job, so the SSRI works for now. But if you told me I could take 1 pill of $SOME_SYNTHETIC_DERIVED_FROM_PSILOCYBIN every 2 weeks instead of 1 pill of lexapro every day, I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat, and I'm sure everyone else would too.
That doesn't mean 'shrooms would go away, far from it. In fact, I think the more research Big Pharma does on psychedelics, the easier it will be to obtain them. It's already pretty easy (and legal) if you know where to look for spores, and at that point it's just buying some equipment and waiting. I pine for the day that mushroom growing kits are sold that make it totally painless for people to grow their own.
Second, you say, "It's a poison, not a medicine" while following with several points supporting the clear medicinal values of the chemical. There is no concrete evidence suggesting psilocybin is a defense mechanism. That's one of the fascinating things about mycology - we know very little. Many mycologists believe that psilocybin may actually be used to attract animals, not repel them. There are several studies about the connection between mycelium and plants as well as theories that the mushroom's fruits bring animals into an ecosystem to disturb/fertilize the surrounding flora, as well as possibly assist with the germination of trees/plants that the fungi depend on.
Humans do not have a monopoly on ingesting these mushrooms - goats have been known to seek out psilocybe cubensis and many different animals seek plants/chemicals that bring on altered states of consciousness. Check out "Stealing Fire" if your interested in learning more about this.
It seems you may know very little on mirco-dosing. Many mirco-dosers take a pill every 3-4 days. One of the basic principles is that you do not have any perception of the chemical so no negative side effects. It should not inhibit job performance in any way, if done properly. And much of the research suggest micro-dosing has lasting benefits when a user ends their micro-doing after ~8 weeks. Since you'd "sign up in a heart beat" and know how easy it is to find mushrooms, my question is why do you choose to continue supporting big pharma with daily SSIs? I think it could be argued that the cost/known negative side effects of SSIs outweigh the potential (not confirmed) negatives of a properly regimented 6-8 week micro-dosing experiment. Just my thoughts. I also look forward to the day when growing kits are easily available.
Another: We took cows, which have a special organ called a rumen that is specifically designed to extract nutrients from grasses, an abundant resource that many animals cannot use as a food source, and instead began feeding them diets of corn. The corn heavy diets is worse for the cows overall immune system, requiring the addition of antibiotics. Farmers who raise cows in balance with their natural state of a grass based diet will need little to no antibiotics.
Wood is making a massive comeback in the commercial construction industry because we realized it has some properties that we were too willing to dismiss, including it's flexibility and amazing strength-to-weight in relation to it's cost to produce.
I'm not anti-technology or anti-innovation, but I think it's also important to ask ourselves whether all this extra work we create for ourselves is actually necessary/beneficial. In the case of psilocybin synthesis/extracts, I'm a bit skeptical. I think we're trying to re-invent the wheel.
Same thing with mushrooms, preparing the tea for me is a part of the experience.
But a whole batch mixed together? It seems like that would be both testable and predictable. This is the way to go for sure.
Drying them to cracker dry, then grinding them up, and encapsulating (optional), is a safe way to dose. It's not unpredictable.
> But a whole batch mixed together
Indeed. This is the right way to do it.
Making it in a test tube is fine, but it's really not needed. Mushrooms are very cheap to grow, and it's not like people need to take big doses daily to get the benefits.
They’re using very large doses in therapy, and there are a lot of unpleasant things that are going to happen already even at the minimum effective dose.
From the article, apparently yes it can: "It's unfeasible and way too expensive to extract psilocybin from magic mushrooms"
It's wrong, what it says, but it definitely says it.
My (entirely pop-culture based) impression is that "white powder" and similar processed substances of high purity are the dominant form for almost all drugs. Cocaine isn't sold as leaves, nor can you buy dried poppies.
Marijuana is an exception because it easier to smoke in its more natural state and, let's face it, because its users are hippies beholden to the naturalistic fallacy. But THC and that-other-stuff-I-cant-remember are available as concentrates.
Given these preferences, psilocybin is the outlier where, as far as I can tell, only the raw, natural form is available. Since the taste is so awful it's close to legendary, I think we can exclude market preference as a cause. That leaves the extraction being rather difficult as the most plausible explanation, doesn't it?
I miss that, because I have no interest in cocaine powder whatsoever, but coca tea is a nice change of pace from caffeine-based natural stimulants.
With respect to psilo(cy)bin, there's a product one can find sometimes called 'tootsie roll', which is a concentrate of the alkaloids mixed with chocolate and other confectionary ingredients. A simple alcohol extraction will do the trick, and ordinary acid-base workup can get whatever degree of purity is desired.
The phosphoryl group is somewhat delicate, which means what you end up with using acid-base is mostly psilocin. But no one actually cares about that ;)
This is one of those situations where I feel like we (humans) are approaching it all wrong. Why over complicate it by trying to “extract” the psilocybin instead of treating it like marijuana and growing the mushrooms in highly controlled settings and then testing for potency?!
As someone who’s recently had very positive experiences with both large/small doses of magic mushrooms, it’s disheartening to see us remake the mistakes of the past by trying to over-engineer something from nature. IMO, the optimum approach would be to have humility and simply be stewards of this wonderful gift. There is no reason That psilocybin shouldn’t be administered in its most common form, as it has been for thousands of years, other than it would be harder to profit off of.