4 ms·

That's a lot of words without much analysis. Can you please explain precisely how these studies are bad science?

• carapace 7y ago
  It would take too long to do the subject justice, but I'll try to sketch it: The idea that psilocybin "cures" smoking addiction is like the "Virtus dormitiua" > I am asked by the learned doctor the cause and reason why opium causes sleep. To which I reply, because it has a dormitive property, whose nature is to lull the senses to sleep. We have no idea why magic mushroom do what they do, nor any solid scientific idea of how they do what they do. The best we can say is, "By breaking down those networks, there's a chance they won't re-form." and "It seemed to work..." A neuroscientist friend of mine likes to say, "Psychiatry is not a branch of medicine." This still isn't it. For example: at any point were the subjects of the study given a blood test?
  • dwaltrip 7y ago
    Not fully understanding the mechanisms doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. If that was the case, anaesthesia should have already been abandoned quite emphatically. Of course, caution is certainly warranted with such powerful tools, especially as we try to understand them better. But if they are effective and can be used safely in the right context, then we should use them. And we have indications that this is the case. So we must proceed carefully forward. I'm so glad that the multi-decade blockade on research is finally lifting.