91–100 of 114 posts
Psychedelics have extremely high therapeutic potential, and are also just interesting in a similar same way as space exploration is interesting.
It is absolutely shocking to me that research into psychedelics isn't swamped with funding. I'd imagine that some wealthy people must find this stuff extremely intriguing - Yuri Milner is spending $100 million on space exploration, and a psilocybin phase 3 research trial needs ~$10 million and finds it really hard to raise money? Psychedelics have extremely high therapeutic potential, and are also just interesting in…
I find it more shocking that we as a society put up with it. All the pharmaceutical companies would much rather find synthetic alternatives they can patent/control. Follow the money, as always, and it makes perfect sense.
It is absolutely shocking to me that research into psychedelics isn't swamped with funding. I'd imagine that some wealthy people must find this stuff extremely intriguing - Yuri Milner is spending $100 million on space exploration, and a psilocybin phase 3 research trial needs ~$10 million and finds it really hard to raise money? Psychedelics have extremely high therapeutic potential, and are also just interesting in…
>It is absolutely shocking to me that research into psychedelics isn't swamped with funding. I find it more shocking that we as a society put up with it. All the pharmaceutical companies would much rather find synthetic alternatives they can patent/control. Follow the money, as always, and it makes perfect sense.
Great point.
Before self-medicating based on this combined with a self-diagnosis, consider that LSD and psilocybin have a nasty tendency of triggering latent psychological conditions if not taken in the appropriate dosage and in a controlled environment. [ref: http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy... ]
Correlations can be very useful in providing clues about how all these things work together, but determining what “triggers” what takes an incredible amount of carefully teasing out the real meaning of the data.
There are anecdotal reports of problems with these drugs, but that’s true for all drugs. Currently there is no just significant weight of evidence to draw the conclusions your making.
It is absolutely shocking to me that research into psychedelics isn't swamped with funding. I'd imagine that some wealthy people must find this stuff extremely intriguing - Yuri Milner is spending $100 million on space exploration, and a psilocybin phase 3 research trial needs ~$10 million and finds it really hard to raise money? Psychedelics have extremely high therapeutic potential, and are also just interesting in…
>It is absolutely shocking to me that research into psychedelics isn't swamped with funding. I find it more shocking that we as a society put up with it. All the pharmaceutical companies would much rather find synthetic alternatives they can patent/control. Follow the money, as always, and it makes perfect sense.
Why are not pharmaceutical companies pushing synthetic psychedelics then? The whole {P,T}IHKAL is full of them, it surely isn't a large problem to cook up another variant to patent.
Before self-medicating based on this combined with a self-diagnosis, consider that LSD and psilocybin have a nasty tendency of triggering latent psychological conditions if not taken in the appropriate dosage and in a controlled environment. [ref: http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy... ]
I'd definitely advise anyone thinking about this to do their research but the risk doesn't seem to be as large as often suggested. There was a large US study that showed no correlation between lifetime psychedelic use and mental health problems. "[...] lifetime use of LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, or peyote, or past year use of LSD, was not associated with a higher rate of mental health problems." https://www.nature.co…
The anti-depressant business model is genius: (a) They're sold at a very high price point, (b) they generally make you factually dependent for quite some time (and they're quite hard to quit). It's one of big pharma's preferred multi-billion cash cows.
Now you know who's interested in spreading fear, doubt and uncertainty regarding cheap and effective competing substances such as LSD and psilocybin. And this industry has the resources to effectively influence public discussion forums such as HN, Reddit, Slashdot, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Life time use” != "use over a long period of time" In epidemiological surveys, lifetime use == reports using at least once.
> In epidemiological surveys, lifetime use == reports using at least once. Not necessarily. For smoking you need to smoke 100 cigarettes before qualifying for lifetime use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You speak such obvious bullshit, and yet with such authority. You don't have evidence of any of the things you just said.
To be fair, these realizations are a commonly reported effect of psychoactive drugs. They are common, and the realizations are strong enough that the participants occasionally internalize those ideas. Whether or not they're true objectively doesn't really matter if the participants believe them to be true. If they believe those ideas to be true, and that belief is what causes the improvement (similar to how "finding…
Heroin, BTW, helps from cough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History > From 1898 through to 1910, diamorphine was marketed under the trademark name Heroin as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant.
>heroin >non-addictive I'm confused.
Anti depressants are addictive in the classical sense. But the pharmaceutical companies don't call it 'withdrawl' but rather 'discontinuation syndrome' when you're coming off them. Looks like not much as changed in 100 odd years of pharmaceutical marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>heroin >non-addictive I'm confused.
> marketed as Anti depressants are addictive in the classical sense. But the pharmaceutical companies don't call it 'withdrawl' but rather 'discontinuation syndrome' when you're coming off them. Looks like not much as changed in 100 odd years of pharmaceutical marketing.
No, they are not. addiction in the classic sense requires:
1) pre-occupation and seeking
2) tolerance
3) dependence
Anti depressant meds don't have any of these. But even if you call discontinuation effects "dependence" you still don't have tolerance or drug seeking and preoccupation.