4 ms·

Stamets is a fascinating & passionate guy, but it's worth remembering that he makes a lot of claims that aren't necessarily backed up by research (Stamets himse

Stamets is a fascinating & passionate guy, but it's worth remembering that he makes a lot of claims that aren't necessarily backed up by research (Stamets himself has only a bachelor's degree). https://www.jncas.org/doi/full/10.7572/2167-5880-130.1.16 https://www.jncas.org/doi/full/10.7572/2167-5880-130.1.16 And some of his claims are just plain pseudoscience, i.e. his claims on the Joe Rogan Show about "entering the multiverse" via psilocybin, the Stoned Ape theory, etc. https://psychedelictimes.com/paul-stamets-psilocybin-stories-on-joe-rogan-podcast-will-blow-your-mind/ https://psychedelictimes.com/paul-stamets-psilocybin-stories...

RosanaAnaDana 6y ago
I feel like I have to take this reminder to reddit on a regular basis. The job of an evangelist isn't necessarily to get it right, but to get people excited. Stamets does that, but I wouldn't rely on him as a source for any scientific research or information.
tcbawo 6y ago
I can't speak for Stamets, but I wouldn't disqualify someone as an authority in a field due to lack of degree. For example, Agner Fog is an anthropologist who is also a frequently cited authority on x86 instruction timing and optimization.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  I think the gp is disqualifying Stamets as an authority because he makes claims that are poorly supported by evidence. I agree with this assessment. He also happens to have no formal qualifications. So from where does he derive his authority? And if he has no authority, why is an article that is based on his authority interesting? I agree with gp that he's interesting, but he's also a salesman for fungi --- literally. For example, he sells lions mane extracts which promise to improve memory and cognitive function. All of the science in this area is based on mouse studies. Stamets asserts this "translates from mice to humans," and leaves it at that. He makes statements such as "a Japanese researcher postulated" or "there are several clinical trials out there" (without commenting on their design or even conclusions). So while nothing he says is a lie, everything he says is meant to point to a certain conclusion despite a dramatic lack of direct evidence. If lions mane really helped that much, you'd think it would be easy to determine that, because given it's safety profile it should be easy to run a study on humans.
  - smallnamespace 6y ago
    On the other hand, well powered human studies are expensive, but supplements are very cheap.
  - electrondood 6y ago
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=hericium+erinaceus+NOT+mice+NOT+rats https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=hericium+erinaceus+NOT...
  - ianai 6y ago
    He does say they don’t go from mice to humans automatically.
- runarberg 6y ago
  See also Jane Goodall who was awarded her degree only after her groundbreaking discoveries about non-human primate behavior.
tastyfreeze 6y ago
Many of his claims for medicinal and environmental use of fungi are backed by independent research. Talking about some "out there" ideas doesnt disqualify everything somebody says.
- mykowebhn 6y ago
  Remember Stamets owns a company that sells a lot of these fungal medicinal products, so I would question his impartiality when making any scientific claims.
  - dguaraglia 6y ago
    I'd agree about that when it comes to most of the 'supplement' side of his fungi business. I'm a bit less skeptical when it comes to this particular application regarding bees: it seems like a pretty easy thing to test and is likely more regulated than the supplements business. I guess at the end of the day I want to believe there's a solid solution for colony collapse, otherwise we might be screwed.
  - z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
    His impartial claims are apparently fine for the CDC and US govt. Plenty of his work is literally evidenced in his ted talks.
  - WalterSear 6y ago
    His relationship with the company is more damning than that: his commercial supplements are well known for containing very little of the active ingredients he is associated with. It's a cash grab.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
You sound like quite an unimaginative square. Your opinion on psychedelic use aside, his research is orders of magnitude ahead of anything the precious pharma and argitech are pumping out. Guess we should just stick to "experts" in our incredibly entrenched, monopolistic, sadistic industrial complexes to pump out the next forced animal tested drug which cures nothing and keeps you dependent.

RosanaAnaDana 6y ago

I feel like I have to take this reminder to reddit on a regular basis. The job of an evangelist isn't necessarily to get it right, but to get people excited. Stamets does that, but I wouldn't rely on him as a source for any scientific research or information.

tcbawo 6y ago

I can't speak for Stamets, but I wouldn't disqualify someone as an authority in a field due to lack of degree. For example, Agner Fog is an anthropologist who is also a frequently cited authority on x86 instruction timing and optimization.

bagacrap 6y ago
I think the gp is disqualifying Stamets as an authority because he makes claims that are poorly supported by evidence. I agree with this assessment. He also happens to have no formal qualifications. So from where does he derive his authority? And if he has no authority, why is an article that is based on his authority interesting? I agree with gp that he's interesting, but he's also a salesman for fungi --- literally. For example, he sells lions mane extracts which promise to improve memory and cognitive function. All of the science in this area is based on mouse studies. Stamets asserts this "translates from mice to humans," and leaves it at that. He makes statements such as "a Japanese researcher postulated" or "there are several clinical trials out there" (without commenting on their design or even conclusions). So while nothing he says is a lie, everything he says is meant to point to a certain conclusion despite a dramatic lack of direct evidence. If lions mane really helped that much, you'd think it would be easy to determine that, because given it's safety profile it should be easy to run a study on humans.
- smallnamespace 6y ago
  On the other hand, well powered human studies are expensive, but supplements are very cheap.
- electrondood 6y ago
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=hericium+erinaceus+NOT+mice+NOT+rats https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=hericium+erinaceus+NOT...
- ianai 6y ago
  He does say they don’t go from mice to humans automatically.
runarberg 6y ago
See also Jane Goodall who was awarded her degree only after her groundbreaking discoveries about non-human primate behavior.

tastyfreeze 6y ago

Many of his claims for medicinal and environmental use of fungi are backed by independent research. Talking about some "out there" ideas doesnt disqualify everything somebody says.

mykowebhn 6y ago
Remember Stamets owns a company that sells a lot of these fungal medicinal products, so I would question his impartiality when making any scientific claims.
- dguaraglia 6y ago
  I'd agree about that when it comes to most of the 'supplement' side of his fungi business. I'm a bit less skeptical when it comes to this particular application regarding bees: it seems like a pretty easy thing to test and is likely more regulated than the supplements business. I guess at the end of the day I want to believe there's a solid solution for colony collapse, otherwise we might be screwed.
- z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
  His impartial claims are apparently fine for the CDC and US govt. Plenty of his work is literally evidenced in his ted talks.
- WalterSear 6y ago
  His relationship with the company is more damning than that: his commercial supplements are well known for containing very little of the active ingredients he is associated with. It's a cash grab.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

z3ncyberpunk 6y ago

You sound like quite an unimaginative square. Your opinion on psychedelic use aside, his research is orders of magnitude ahead of anything the precious pharma and argitech are pumping out. Guess we should just stick to "experts" in our incredibly entrenched, monopolistic, sadistic industrial complexes to pump out the next forced animal tested drug which cures nothing and keeps you dependent.