4 ms·

> However, what drives me crazy is how are we supposed to get the medicine? It might be too soon to call this "medicine," a word with certain emotional associa

by lutusp 9y ago

> However, what drives me crazy is how are we supposed to get the medicine? It might be too soon to call this "medicine," a word with certain emotional associations. The article includes many interesting and intriguing anecdotes, but to date the described effects haven't been examined in a properly designed double-blind study (a study with two or more groups and no practical way for the subjects or experimenters to know which group is which[1]). We must all remember that the placebo effect is particularly persuasive -- some would say confounding -- in the evaluation of mental states. On the other hand, the so-called "war on drugs" has made it difficult to study these substances without legal entanglements, a factor that by itself may have held back legitimate research for decades. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment#Double-blind_trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment#Double-blin...

pmoriarty 9y ago
"It might be too soon to call this "medicine," a word with certain emotional associations. The article includes many interesting and intriguing anecdotes, but to date the described effects haven't been examined in a properly designed double-blind study" The history of medicine is full of examples of treatments being tested in the clinic long before any double-blind tests are made. Things like the first use of anesthetic spring to mind. If they had waited for double-blind studies that would have satisfied modern science, millions of people would have suffered for another hundred years without it. The practice of testing treatments in the clinic continues to this day, with doctors prescribing medicines for off-label uses, and with even psychedelics being used in psychedelic therapy by psychologists brave enough to risk their careers and freedom to help people. Ideally there would be double-blind studies on everything, but those studies cost an enormous amount of money, and in the case of psychedelics have to overcome enormous political hurdles. The cost rises astronomically when we're talking about large, statistically significant double-blind studies. Furthermore, since a lot of psychedelics, like mushrooms and peyote, can be ingested directly from plants, and many others like LSD have long been out of patent protection, most pharmaceutical companies (which are usually the only ones with pockets deep enough to fund these kinds of studies) aren't interested, as they won't make a profit on something so easily available from other sources than themselves. That's not to mention the political hot potato of psychedelic research as a whole, which is still regarded with suspicion by much of the medical and political establishment.
- lutusp 9y ago
  All I'm saying is, without reliable double-blind studies, changing LSD's status from an illegal substance to a "medicine" won't fly politically.
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    Politics is a strange bird, and it's really hard to predict the future. Much of the drug policy in the US is not based on science or medicine, and the US government has repeatedly ignored the advice of prestigious scientific and medical bodies and panels to soften its anti-drug stance, reschedule drugs, and treat drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a legal one. In the meantime, some states have gone ahead and legalized medical marijuana and even recreational marijuana. This was often done by referendum, where voters got to decide, and how voters decided is a complete mystery. Did they take science in to account? Did they care about double-blind trials? Who knows? But considering the massive ignorance of science by the general public, it probably wasn't science that tipped the balance. I suspect that if wholesale legalization of some currently illegal drugs does come, it will have little to do with science, and more to do with public perception change, and the dying off of old, rabidly anti-drug legalization opponents from another generation.
    - lutusp 9y ago
      All true, a high-quality comment. It's true about marijuana, and it may eventually be true about some other drugs that turn out to have beneficial uses -- in a process driven mostly by politics and public relations, very little science.
  - jksmith 9y ago
    I doubt any classed manufactured drugs would become legal in US unless major (1st tier) drug companies figured out a way to actually make money with them, no matter their potential benefits to consumers. Profit potential has by far the most influence on what flies politically.
    - 9y ago

by lutusp 9y ago

pmoriarty 9y ago

"It might be too soon to call this "medicine," a word with certain emotional associations. The article includes many interesting and intriguing anecdotes, but to date the described effects haven't been examined in a properly designed double-blind study" The history of medicine is full of examples of treatments being tested in the clinic long before any double-blind tests are made. Things like the first use of anesthetic spring to mind. If they had waited for double-blind studies that would have satisfied modern science, millions of people would have suffered for another hundred years without it. The practice of testing treatments in the clinic continues to this day, with doctors prescribing medicines for off-label uses, and with even psychedelics being used in psychedelic therapy by psychologists brave enough to risk their careers and freedom to help people. Ideally there would be double-blind studies on everything, but those studies cost an enormous amount of money, and in the case of psychedelics have to overcome enormous political hurdles. The cost rises astronomically when we're talking about large, statistically significant double-blind studies. Furthermore, since a lot of psychedelics, like mushrooms and peyote, can be ingested directly from plants, and many others like LSD have long been out of patent protection, most pharmaceutical companies (which are usually the only ones with pockets deep enough to fund these kinds of studies) aren't interested, as they won't make a profit on something so easily available from other sources than themselves. That's not to mention the political hot potato of psychedelic research as a whole, which is still regarded with suspicion by much of the medical and political establishment.

lutusp 9y ago
All I'm saying is, without reliable double-blind studies, changing LSD's status from an illegal substance to a "medicine" won't fly politically.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  Politics is a strange bird, and it's really hard to predict the future. Much of the drug policy in the US is not based on science or medicine, and the US government has repeatedly ignored the advice of prestigious scientific and medical bodies and panels to soften its anti-drug stance, reschedule drugs, and treat drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a legal one. In the meantime, some states have gone ahead and legalized medical marijuana and even recreational marijuana. This was often done by referendum, where voters got to decide, and how voters decided is a complete mystery. Did they take science in to account? Did they care about double-blind trials? Who knows? But considering the massive ignorance of science by the general public, it probably wasn't science that tipped the balance. I suspect that if wholesale legalization of some currently illegal drugs does come, it will have little to do with science, and more to do with public perception change, and the dying off of old, rabidly anti-drug legalization opponents from another generation.
  - lutusp 9y ago
    All true, a high-quality comment. It's true about marijuana, and it may eventually be true about some other drugs that turn out to have beneficial uses -- in a process driven mostly by politics and public relations, very little science.
- jksmith 9y ago
  I doubt any classed manufactured drugs would become legal in US unless major (1st tier) drug companies figured out a way to actually make money with them, no matter their potential benefits to consumers. Profit potential has by far the most influence on what flies politically.
  - 9y ago