3 ms·
We shouldn't make literally everyone take it, that's silly. The John's Hopkins studies do show sustained long term (6-12 months) clinical improvements for about
by banads 6y ago
We shouldn't make literally everyone take it, that's silly. The John's Hopkins studies do show sustained long term (6-12 months) clinical improvements for about 80% of test subjects -- from a single dose. No other psychopharmaceutical drug comes close to such success, much less with a single dose.
- TeaDrunk 6y agoTest subjects that are highly selected for to avoid the exact conditions I was describing. We need larger studies before we make such bold claims that potentially make invisible or completely overlook the variety of mental conditions that this sort of plan would expose people of. Additionally, 6 to 12 months is not nearly long enough to say that an entire population should be dosed with a drug.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- banads 6y agoYes, anyone trying to push these drugs on literally everyone is a fool. The reason people with pre-existing psychosis like schizophrenia are being ruled out of such studies is because the risk is plainly obvious. That's why doctors often prescribe medicine with the caveat "do not take drug A if you have conditions XYZ"
- TeaDrunk 6y agoWhich is why I'm highly disagreeing with the concept that such drugs should be widely or anywhere near universally taken. You'll likely have a significant subset of people who shouldn't be taking this medication, either due to being related to someone with a psychotic or dissociative disorder, or having one themselves. I also worry about people whose existing schizotypal traits are within normal bounds but may be exaggerated by psychedelics to a negative outcome.
- banads 6y agoHigh doses of psychedelics literally induces schizophrenia in its users, albeit for a brief amount of time, so it makes sense why that could be dangerous for people already living in such a state