4 ms·

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 ev

by laser 9y ago

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-psychedelics-and-psychosis-1.16968 https://www.nature.com/news/no-link-found-between-psychedeli... [2] http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/03/28/lsd-and-schizophrenia-does-acid-cause-mental-illness/ http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/03/28/lsd-and-schizophreni... [3]

darpa_escapee 9y ago
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.
- berberous 9y ago
  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?
- adrusi 9y ago
  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).
  - darpa_escapee 9y ago
    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.
  - hhhxyxyy 9y ago
    What’s the basis for your presumption?
sevenfive 9y ago
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.
throwanybble 9y ago
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.
- cc81 9y ago
  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.
  - throwanybble 9y ago
    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.
afro88 9y ago
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.

by laser 9y ago

darpa_escapee 9y ago

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.

berberous 9y ago
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?
adrusi 9y ago
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).
- darpa_escapee 9y ago
  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.
- hhhxyxyy 9y ago
  What’s the basis for your presumption?

sevenfive 9y ago

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.

throwanybble 9y ago

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.

cc81 9y ago
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.
- throwanybble 9y ago
  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.

afro88 9y ago

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.