4 ms·

...in rodents. How would they even know it's "non-hallucinogenic"? Parenthetically, the term "halluciongen" is pejorative, and I wish at least researchers wou

...in rodents. How would they even know it's "non-hallucinogenic"? Parenthetically, the term "halluciongen" is pejorative, and I wish at least researchers would have more sense than continuing to use it. One of the reasons it's pejorative is that it demeans what one experiences when using such substances as "just a hallucination", whereas it's highly debatable whether that's in fact the case, or even what a "hallucination" is. Some have argued that these substances open your eyes to the "true reality", and it's this reality that's illusory or false on some level. This is a view that goes back thousands of years back at least to Plato and Hinduisim before that, but even in contemporary society there are people who believe that these substances get one in touch with really existing spirits, or ancestors, or god. It also demeans the experience as being valueless in itself. It's far from clear that it is, and many people consider the "hallucinations" by far the most valuable thing about the experience, and argue that it is by the revelations that they have on these substances that the beneficial effects come about. This is, as the existence of this paper shows, still an area of research, but this paper shouldn't be trying to close off that possibility by choosing to use terminology whose very definition presumes the contents of the experience is valueless. Another reason it's pejorative is that there are people who consider these substances to be sacred or teachers, so to call them substances that merely induce hallucinations is disrespectful to these views as well.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
This seems like an unnecessarily strong negative reaction to something people are working on to explore mental health treatment. Personally I would like to benefit from this research if it pans out. I don’t have a generally negative association with “hallucinogen” but for personal reasons I’ve been hesitant to try them. If I could benefit from a synthetic of the chemical compounds without undesired (by me) psychoactive effects, I would certainly like to know.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  I'm all for the research, just not their choice of terminology.
- LocalH 6y ago
  The worry (at least for me, and one which I suspect the parent comment shares at least in part) is that in creating these "non-hallucinogenic" paths, the government will choose to direct therapy down that path exclusively, and potentially close off the research into the unmodified psychedelic compounds.
  - elevenoh 6y ago
    This is my concern as well. One could strongly argue that government & quite a few special interest would prefer the research was directed toward 'non-hallucinogenic' research paths. Why? Psychedelic 'hallucinations' aka altered perception have lasting effects on your outlook on reality, and it typically orients folks a little more toward to truth (e.g. concluding "maybe my life of empty materialism & status chasing isn't as deeply satisfying as I've come to believe." or "maybe I don't need daily zoloft if I change my values & life."). Aside: Non-hallucinogenic psych analogous could be useful for folks with schizophrenia or panic.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      "Non-hallucinogenic psych analogous could be useful for folks with schizophrenia or panic." There was some early research which reported success in using LSD and psilocybin to treat schizophrenia in children: https://maps.org/news-letters/v07n3/07318fis.html https://maps.org/news-letters/v07n3/07318fis.html
      - elevenoh 6y ago
        wild. Aside: I've seen cannabis contribute to schizo onset.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    The worry for me is the opposite. I don’t want to experience hallucinations but I want to treat my mental illness. One thing is your imagination, the other is my reality.
    - 6y ago
kaczordon 6y ago
You’ll like this Twitter then :) https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice?s=20 https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice?s=20
unmole 6y ago
> Some have argued that these substances open your eyes to the "true reality", and it's this reality that's illusory or false on some level. Where they on said substances when they made that argument?
greyface- 6y ago
"Mouse head-twitch response assays". Administration of 5-MeO-DMT causes mice to twitch their heads. Administration of this compound does not. Therefore, the paper concludes, this compound is not hallucinogenic.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  Not only is that absolutely ridiculous on the face of it, because there's no reason to think that head twitching has anything to do with having "hallucinations", but 5-MeO-DMT is not related to ibogaine, of which this particular drug is an analog. The most obvious question (apart from why the authors think that head nodding has anything to do with hallucinations) is whether ibogaine made mice twitch their heads, and why they didn't compare ibogaine's head twitching effect on mice to the effect the ibogaine analog had.
  - greyface- 6y ago
    Here's the paper they cite on the correlation between the twitch response and subjective hallucinogenic effects: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028390819305040 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...
sigmaprimus 6y ago
I took my fair share of hallucinogens in my younger years and can attest to the fact that there are atleast two very distinct aspects to the high from phycadellics. 1st aspect is: "The visual" such as walls breathing, tracers following hand movements, prismatic offset of vision, the inability to read text and many more but all related to visual perception. 2nd aspect is: What I would call the "Mental" or "Mind F#(k" pardon my language but it is truly the best words for it. This is the part that pushes emotions and inner thoughts, possibly sub conscious thought to the forefront. Bad trips come from this but so do many epiphany(epiphanI?). There may be benifits to both aspects, I feel being able to isolate each part and produce a drug with none of one or even control the levels of both would be a good thing. Think of the recent advancements in Cannabis production which BTW is also a hallucinogen depending on THC levels and strain.
ketamine__ 6y ago
> Another reason it's pejorative is that there are people who consider these substances to be sacred or teachers, so to call them substances that merely induce hallucinations is disrespectful to these views as well. I have a prescription for ketamine lozenges for treatment resistant depression. I rarely have hallucinations anymore but the anti-depressant effect is still present. The single biggest threat to my continued treatment are individuals and doctors that want to apply religion where it has no place.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

This seems like an unnecessarily strong negative reaction to something people are working on to explore mental health treatment. Personally I would like to benefit from this research if it pans out. I don’t have a generally negative association with “hallucinogen” but for personal reasons I’ve been hesitant to try them. If I could benefit from a synthetic of the chemical compounds without undesired (by me) psychoactive effects, I would certainly like to know.

pmoriarty 6y ago
I'm all for the research, just not their choice of terminology.
LocalH 6y ago
The worry (at least for me, and one which I suspect the parent comment shares at least in part) is that in creating these "non-hallucinogenic" paths, the government will choose to direct therapy down that path exclusively, and potentially close off the research into the unmodified psychedelic compounds.
- elevenoh 6y ago
  This is my concern as well. One could strongly argue that government & quite a few special interest would prefer the research was directed toward 'non-hallucinogenic' research paths. Why? Psychedelic 'hallucinations' aka altered perception have lasting effects on your outlook on reality, and it typically orients folks a little more toward to truth (e.g. concluding "maybe my life of empty materialism & status chasing isn't as deeply satisfying as I've come to believe." or "maybe I don't need daily zoloft if I change my values & life."). Aside: Non-hallucinogenic psych analogous could be useful for folks with schizophrenia or panic.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    "Non-hallucinogenic psych analogous could be useful for folks with schizophrenia or panic." There was some early research which reported success in using LSD and psilocybin to treat schizophrenia in children: https://maps.org/news-letters/v07n3/07318fis.html https://maps.org/news-letters/v07n3/07318fis.html
    - elevenoh 6y ago
      wild. Aside: I've seen cannabis contribute to schizo onset.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  The worry for me is the opposite. I don’t want to experience hallucinations but I want to treat my mental illness. One thing is your imagination, the other is my reality.
  - 6y ago

kaczordon 6y ago

You’ll like this Twitter then :) https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice?s=20 https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice?s=20

unmole 6y ago

> Some have argued that these substances open your eyes to the "true reality", and it's this reality that's illusory or false on some level. Where they on said substances when they made that argument?

greyface- 6y ago

"Mouse head-twitch response assays". Administration of 5-MeO-DMT causes mice to twitch their heads. Administration of this compound does not. Therefore, the paper concludes, this compound is not hallucinogenic.

pmoriarty 6y ago
Not only is that absolutely ridiculous on the face of it, because there's no reason to think that head twitching has anything to do with having "hallucinations", but 5-MeO-DMT is not related to ibogaine, of which this particular drug is an analog. The most obvious question (apart from why the authors think that head nodding has anything to do with hallucinations) is whether ibogaine made mice twitch their heads, and why they didn't compare ibogaine's head twitching effect on mice to the effect the ibogaine analog had.
- greyface- 6y ago
  Here's the paper they cite on the correlation between the twitch response and subjective hallucinogenic effects: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028390819305040 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...

sigmaprimus 6y ago

I took my fair share of hallucinogens in my younger years and can attest to the fact that there are atleast two very distinct aspects to the high from phycadellics. 1st aspect is: "The visual" such as walls breathing, tracers following hand movements, prismatic offset of vision, the inability to read text and many more but all related to visual perception. 2nd aspect is: What I would call the "Mental" or "Mind F#(k" pardon my language but it is truly the best words for it. This is the part that pushes emotions and inner thoughts, possibly sub conscious thought to the forefront. Bad trips come from this but so do many epiphany(epiphanI?). There may be benifits to both aspects, I feel being able to isolate each part and produce a drug with none of one or even control the levels of both would be a good thing. Think of the recent advancements in Cannabis production which BTW is also a hallucinogen depending on THC levels and strain.

ketamine__ 6y ago

> Another reason it's pejorative is that there are people who consider these substances to be sacred or teachers, so to call them substances that merely induce hallucinations is disrespectful to these views as well. I have a prescription for ketamine lozenges for treatment resistant depression. I rarely have hallucinations anymore but the anti-depressant effect is still present. The single biggest threat to my continued treatment are individuals and doctors that want to apply religion where it has no place.