Live data from Hacker News

Psychedelics and mental illness

stuartritchie.substack.com

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#71

I know a lot of cannabis fans (and count myself as one). Very, very few of them acknowledge that cannabis affects people inconsistently; one person's reaction to it can be very different than others. This is inconvenient for calling it a "medicine" so let's just ignore it. Psychedelics are even worse. The same dose of the same drug can produce wildly vary effects in the same person depending on factors we have troubl…

It's fun to send this "MAYBE YOU JUST HAVENT TRIED THE RIGHT STRAIN" [1] image to friends who don't like weed because it's a pretty hilarious embodiment of the downright anxiety the stuff engenders in a lot of people. I'm pretty sure it's like a genetic thing. I think I remember hearing something about the COMT gene being potentially affected if you smoke too much too early in life as a teenage stoner or whatever, an…

I'm not in the anxiety camp or in the fun camp. The general experience of marijuana products is something like the sleepy lethargy of having eaten an excessively large meal. Not wholly unpleasant but neither is it something I'm really excited about seeking out. Low doses do mostly nothing. I've tried plenty of strains. To be fair I still do it sometimes.

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#72
The argument ”all but one psychedelics researchers have taken psychedelics” is not particularly convincing; many other researchers have taken psychedelics, too. Certainly one wouldn’t expect e.g. liberal arts, sociology or organic chem majors and their cohorts to be completely naive to them.

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#73

I know a lot of cannabis fans (and count myself as one). Very, very few of them acknowledge that cannabis affects people inconsistently; one person's reaction to it can be very different than others. This is inconvenient for calling it a "medicine" so let's just ignore it. Psychedelics are even worse. The same dose of the same drug can produce wildly vary effects in the same person depending on factors we have troubl…

Psychedelic enthusiasts can be even worse in this regard. When someone does have a bad trip, they tend to reach for every possible excuse to avoid blaming the drug. This ranges from criticizing their "set and setting" to blaming "triggering an underlying mental health issue". The latter is particularly concerning in the context of treating mental health issues, because by definition everyone in that category has some…

> Psychedelic enthusiasts can be even worse in this regard.

Oh yes, I've had a run in with a "psychedelic enthusiast", and this is so accurate. It was my girlfriend during my late 20s, a woman who was 12 years older, very into psychedelics, and pretty obnoxious about how beneficial they were. Of course, at the time I ate it up because I was kinda lost in life, and let her overcome my better judgement with her guru bullshit.

I'd previously only ever used marijuana, and had mostly negative experiences resulting in anxiety, so had mostly sworn off the idea of trying psychedelics until she came into my life. Long story short, I tried mushrooms once with her, fun for a bit, but then led into a crazy making spiral leading me to be convinced I'd never be the same.

I guess I was a glutton for punishment back then, because I also tried LSD with her twice, and it had pretty similar results. In fact the second trip shook me up in such a bad way that I think it took nearly a year to get the negative bits still remaining out of my head.

Of course her reaction after all this was that I was being too resistant and that I simply needed to have a "corrective experience". Fuck that! She seriously couldn't comprehend the fact that everyone reacts to psychedelics differently and that they might be quite dangerous for some people. Which seemed kinda crazy because she was actually highly intelligent, but possibly too arrogant to look outside her world. I seriously could have ended up in an institution if I had stayed with that woman (can you tell I'm venting a tad :) ).

I've later come to learn that I have a genetic mutation that reduces my ability to degrade dopamine in the prefrontal cortex by 75% (COMT met/met), leading to much higher baseline dopamine levels. After learning about this, it makes a ton of sense why I have such bad experiences with dopaminergic drugs like caffeine and Adderall (euphoria followed hours later by intense anxiety). Now I don't know how LSD and mushrooms impact the domaine system, but it does make me wonder if this genetic SNP, partially explains my propensity to anxiety/psychosis on these drugs. High baseline dopamine leads to hyperfocus, which is great for coding or other technical work, but terrible when you're stuck in a spiral of thinking you're going crazy and will never be the same.

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#74

I’ve always wondered… Do psychedelics cause mental illness or treat mental illness? Our minds are so weird that I have a simple theory that we are all slightly insane in at least some small way. But from what I have observed from friends who take them - they cause them to cope with troubles that are normally difficult to deal with. I guess I’m not brave enough to try them to deal with my own troubles myself right now…

The best description that I have heard that most users that I have spoke to agree on is that psychedelics have an aspect of "flattening" emotional significance of things by making any thought that you have just as "prominent" as another experience. The reduction of blood flow to the area of the brain that is responsible for parsing reality means that your thoughts become more prominent, making any thought of change or improvement just as impactful mentally as what you believe your reality is.

This in turn gives lasting perspectives in the form of "hey, I am able to think and feel about things differently and not locked into this pattern of thought", which could be the necessary catalyst for change.

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#75
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lots of people used LSD in the 60s and 70s" That's an overblown stereotype. The vast, vast majority of people did not use any drugs in that era.

"Lots" is not the same thing as "the vast majority". Millions of people used LSD between '66 and '80.

Millions of people use LSD every year today, in addition to a dozen other hallucinogens.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/americans-increas...

"In the late 1970s... 10 percent of high school seniors reported ever using LSD, compared with 6 percent today."

Ten percent isn't very much. Americans in the 60's and 70's were far more likely to support endless jail time for drug users than to be one themself.

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#76
post #16

I like the article. With psychedelics, it's clear that much of the excitement comes from people (including scientists) who have used them and found their experiences helpful. That's not science but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Not everything is amenable to clinical study and this doesn't mean we should disregard it. And the issue isn't just psychedelics being hard to study. Mental health is hard to study. An overwei…

> as I can tell they didn't usher in a new age of love, peace, and tolerance. Things did improve, but of course how would you attribute it to that, and of course, how would you account for the effectiveness of the counter forces? Just because something didn't succeed completely doesn't mean we can conclude it has no effect, especially if it wasn't actually tried at the suggested scale. We have this problem in Vancouv…

> There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .

> And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

> So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

That's Hunter S. Thompson on the 60s drug movement. I'm not saying it led to nothing but it certainly didn't lead where its members expected and its legacy is far from clear.

I think we should continue to study these drugs. I just think there's a lot of unwarranted optimism.

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#77
post #61

I agree with the basic point of the article entirely. However he shows the same kind of bias that he is speaking out again by not discussing the best known branch of such research. And that is MDMA for PTSD. It is best known simply because it is, in fact, demonstrating that it works. The FDA has been repeatedly calling it a "breakthrough therapy" since 2017. It is in multiple phase 3 trials around the world that are…

> Research papers on it, like https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3, are appearing in the top science journal in the world and are no less enthusiastic than a press release.

The article actually discusses that very paper:

> While we’re here, it’s worth talking about the MAPS MDMA-therapy trial itself. In May 2021, to much media fanfare, they published their Phase III clinical trial in Nature Medicine. The trial reported enormous, nearly unbelievable effect sizes: 0.91 of a standard deviation difference in score on a PTSD questionnaire between an MDMA and a placebo group (both groups got therapy). That’s the kind of effect medical researchers fantasise about.

> Are these effect sizes plausible? Nature Medicine also published two critical commentaries on the paper. The first one points out the issue we discussed above: that the blinding was almost certainly compromised in the study, since the control group got a completely inert placebo and the treatment group surely could tell whether they’d been given ecstasy. Expectations could have played a major role, and might explain at least some of the huge difference between groups (the commentary also makes the interesting point that researchers used to be required to collect data on which condition patients thought they were in, but since 2010 this is no longer the case. It might be time to bring back this rule). The second commentary asked for studies with more relevant control groups and longer follow-up periods to check the safety of the treatment. The MAPS researchers also responded, somewhat limply.

> The journal also published an entirely uncritical commentary co-authored by Imperial College London’s David Nutt. Remember him? He was Fired4Truth as a drugs adviser by the UK Labour government in 2009 for criticising government policy on drug classification; he’s now a major psychedelics researcher who co-authored the psilocybin trial we encountered above. The commentary calls MDMA “remarkable” three separate times in about 1,000 words (it’s true the effect sizes in the study are remarkable, but what if they’re due to expectancy bias?). It also says it’s likely that MDMA “will be an approved medication within a few years”.

> So there’s a final potential harm that stems from the breathless hyping and cheerleading of psychedelic treatments way beyond the evidence: it could mean that therapies—which come with their own rare but real dangers—are approved and rolled out to large numbers of patients when we need a lot more evidence that they really are beneficial in the long term.

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#78
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lots" is not the same thing as "the vast majority". Millions of people used LSD between '66 and '80.

Millions of people use LSD every year today, in addition to a dozen other hallucinogens. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/americans-increas... "In the late 1970s... 10 percent of high school seniors reported ever using LSD, compared with 6 percent today." Ten percent isn't very much. Americans in the 60's and 70's were far more likely to support endless jail time for drug users than to be one themself.

> Ten percent isn't very much

Is this really a hill you want to die on? Seems like a rather large sample to me...

Here's a graph from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lysergic_acid_dieth...

Re: Psychedelics and mental illness

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Forest Service is just wrong on this. Ergot does not contain LSD, although it contains very similar psychoactive alkaloids. Ergot cannot be called a mushroom, it is a fungus that grows on wheat, rye or other grains/grasses.

Parent used the term mushroom, but the article does not. It's correct that the fungus does not contain LSD the chemical, but it does contain lysergic acid which is colloquially LSD the drug. For a short, layman-targeted article I'm inclined to give the US Forest Service a pass on this one.

>but it does contain lysergic acid which is colloquially LSD the drug

The chemical differences between "lysergic acid" and LSD areas significant as the differences between morphine and heroin, if not more so. Pure lysergic acid is closer to LSA, which is still categorically not the same thing as LSD - to the point that many people will refuse to take the former when a test kit reveals they got that as opposed to the latter. They are not colloquially equivalent.

Post reply on HN