3 ms·

While all of this is true, there's an incredible amount of guesswork in other medications that impact mental health. Many drugs come with warnings of suicidal i

While all of this is true, there's an incredible amount of guesswork in other medications that impact mental health. Many drugs come with warnings of suicidal ideation and other dangers. In my own experience as a patient it was always a case of "let's see how this one works for you." My point is simply that every drug carries some risk and that every one of us can react differently to them (including ourselves as we age). I'm pro-psychedelics but agree that they should be treated with utmost respect.

PragmaticPulp 7y ago
> My point is simply that every drug carries some risk and that every one of us can react differently to them It's false equivalency to suggest that because all drugs have some risk, we should treat all drugs as equally risky. Yes, all drugs carry risk. But no, all drugs do not carry equivalent risk profiles. When we're discussing the risks of psychedelics, it's dishonest to try to dismiss them as equivalent to every other drug under the sun. We need to have an honest conversation about the potential risks and how they differ from other psychiatric medications. This was my point with the opening post: Everyone is so excited about the potential applications of psychedelic medicine that we're overlooking traditional logic. If we want to see the field of psychedelic research continue moving in the right direction, it's important that we stay rigorous with our logic and reporting. Can you imagine if a brand name drug was found to have a side effect of triggering psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients, and the drug company responded with "To be fair, all drugs have some risk". HN would be all over that faulty logic if it came from a corporation, but for some reason psychedelics get to play by a different set of rules.
- mistermann 7y ago
  I doubt this was your intent, but my reading of your words kind of leaves me thinking that someone with no background knowledge would leave thinking there is(!) great known danger with at home LSD use, and also that achieving results reasonably equivalent to some of the outcomes described in clinical studies requires(!) the counselling that accompanied it. As for now, the only evidence that can answer such questions is anecdotal user stories, of which we have lots, and from my reading in that realm, while there is undoubtedly very real risk involved the vast majority of feedback is positive. If someone who could benefit from these substances is in a position where they are unable to obtain professional services (most people I'd think at this stage), it would be unfortunate if they didn't bother looking into it because of reading overly protective risk assessments.
- kdmccormick 7y ago
  To be fair, many antidepressants and stimulants can lead to psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients. This happens a non-trivial amount in Bipolar-I patients taking antidepressants. It's a stated side effect that psychiatrists take into account. However, I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, especially given that pharma drugs that trigger episodes would do over the course of months whereas a psychadelic can do it in an hour.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    Honestly, that's probably safer. With normal drugs, there's no hard and fast point where one day you're fine and the next day you're hallucinating. At first it's just weird sounds, then some colors, and by the time it's full objects you've been hallucinating for months and not noticed. Really causes a self-examination about the nature of reality, that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - bananamerica 7y ago
    > To be fair, many antidepressants and stimulants can lead to psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients And that is why you must get a prescription from a trained and authorized professional in order to use those substances
- pstuart 7y ago
  > It's false equivalency to suggest that because all drugs have some risk, we should treat all drugs as equally risky. I didn't suggest such a thing. It was more along the lines of "there are a lot of choices and they all have risks, be aware." > Can you imagine if a brand name drug was found to have a side effect of triggering psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients, and the drug company responded with "To be fair, all drugs have some risk" That pretty much happens, except that the companies respond with "we printed that risk on the label, you were warned"

PragmaticPulp 7y ago

> My point is simply that every drug carries some risk and that every one of us can react differently to them It's false equivalency to suggest that because all drugs have some risk, we should treat all drugs as equally risky. Yes, all drugs carry risk. But no, all drugs do not carry equivalent risk profiles. When we're discussing the risks of psychedelics, it's dishonest to try to dismiss them as equivalent to every other drug under the sun. We need to have an honest conversation about the potential risks and how they differ from other psychiatric medications. This was my point with the opening post: Everyone is so excited about the potential applications of psychedelic medicine that we're overlooking traditional logic. If we want to see the field of psychedelic research continue moving in the right direction, it's important that we stay rigorous with our logic and reporting. Can you imagine if a brand name drug was found to have a side effect of triggering psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients, and the drug company responded with "To be fair, all drugs have some risk". HN would be all over that faulty logic if it came from a corporation, but for some reason psychedelics get to play by a different set of rules.

mistermann 7y ago
I doubt this was your intent, but my reading of your words kind of leaves me thinking that someone with no background knowledge would leave thinking there is(!) great known danger with at home LSD use, and also that achieving results reasonably equivalent to some of the outcomes described in clinical studies requires(!) the counselling that accompanied it. As for now, the only evidence that can answer such questions is anecdotal user stories, of which we have lots, and from my reading in that realm, while there is undoubtedly very real risk involved the vast majority of feedback is positive. If someone who could benefit from these substances is in a position where they are unable to obtain professional services (most people I'd think at this stage), it would be unfortunate if they didn't bother looking into it because of reading overly protective risk assessments.
kdmccormick 7y ago
To be fair, many antidepressants and stimulants can lead to psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients. This happens a non-trivial amount in Bipolar-I patients taking antidepressants. It's a stated side effect that psychiatrists take into account. However, I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, especially given that pharma drugs that trigger episodes would do over the course of months whereas a psychadelic can do it in an hour.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Honestly, that's probably safer. With normal drugs, there's no hard and fast point where one day you're fine and the next day you're hallucinating. At first it's just weird sounds, then some colors, and by the time it's full objects you've been hallucinating for months and not noticed. Really causes a self-examination about the nature of reality, that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- bananamerica 7y ago
  > To be fair, many antidepressants and stimulants can lead to psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients And that is why you must get a prescription from a trained and authorized professional in order to use those substances
pstuart 7y ago
> It's false equivalency to suggest that because all drugs have some risk, we should treat all drugs as equally risky. I didn't suggest such a thing. It was more along the lines of "there are a lot of choices and they all have risks, be aware." > Can you imagine if a brand name drug was found to have a side effect of triggering psychotic episodes in vulnerable patients, and the drug company responded with "To be fair, all drugs have some risk" That pretty much happens, except that the companies respond with "we printed that risk on the label, you were warned"