3 ms·

I'm a fan of Psilocybin but anyone who has been around for awhile in a psychedelic culture like my home town knows people who did too many mushrooms. LSD is a t

I'm a fan of Psilocybin but anyone who has been around for awhile in a psychedelic culture like my home town knows people who did too many mushrooms. LSD is a thing in itself: acid casualties are a real thing.

fdgsdfogijq 5y ago
This is my point, I think these academic researchers and common people have no idea what they are getting into. There are clearly positives to the drugs, but alot of these articles are very naive
- mwattsun 5y ago
  Did you ever notice how the shroomers have a different look in their eyes than the acid heads? There's a lot more warmth to the former as you noted, but there's a tendency to believe really far out things. One friend of mine was convinced she was immortal so she worried a lot about how she was going to replenish the sun with hydrogen so it didn't burn out. The acid heads have a look in their eyes like they are lost in a void and are struggling to get back. Edit: I should note I'm talking about people who do a lot of mushrooms. For example, my friend lived on a commune in England for several years that did high doses of mushrooms on a weekly basis as a community bonding thing (like a Sunday church ritual)
- giantg2 5y ago
  I think the articles are similar to most articles on a "new" pharmaceutical. They overblow the benefits, misinterpret the underlying study, and just generally want to seduce the reader. In this case, the phase 1 trial found that psilocybin has a favorable safety profile in a small study, clearing it for larger studies to find rarer side-effects and evaluate efficacy as a treatment. That's basically it. They can't legitimately claim "psilocybin has no short- or long-term detrimental effects" in a study that small. But it's commonly done for this and other pharmaceuticals.
- tharne 5y ago
  > This is my point, I think these academic researchers and common people have no idea what they are getting into. I don't think that's true. Most people knew smoking was bad for you long before the medical establish said so, ditto for opiates. The only folks who "don't know what they are getting into", are recreational users lying to themselves. That's no reason to dismiss a whole class of drugs that could potentially help people.
  - mwattsun 5y ago
    I'd be the last person to dismiss the benefits, but as the old adage goes "all things in moderation" and there's also no reason to dismiss long-term effects because you did a small study. You could run this study exactly as is except with low doses of alcohol and also find there are no short of long-term detrimental effects.

fdgsdfogijq 5y ago

This is my point, I think these academic researchers and common people have no idea what they are getting into. There are clearly positives to the drugs, but alot of these articles are very naive

mwattsun 5y ago
Did you ever notice how the shroomers have a different look in their eyes than the acid heads? There's a lot more warmth to the former as you noted, but there's a tendency to believe really far out things. One friend of mine was convinced she was immortal so she worried a lot about how she was going to replenish the sun with hydrogen so it didn't burn out. The acid heads have a look in their eyes like they are lost in a void and are struggling to get back. Edit: I should note I'm talking about people who do a lot of mushrooms. For example, my friend lived on a commune in England for several years that did high doses of mushrooms on a weekly basis as a community bonding thing (like a Sunday church ritual)
giantg2 5y ago
I think the articles are similar to most articles on a "new" pharmaceutical. They overblow the benefits, misinterpret the underlying study, and just generally want to seduce the reader. In this case, the phase 1 trial found that psilocybin has a favorable safety profile in a small study, clearing it for larger studies to find rarer side-effects and evaluate efficacy as a treatment. That's basically it. They can't legitimately claim "psilocybin has no short- or long-term detrimental effects" in a study that small. But it's commonly done for this and other pharmaceuticals.
tharne 5y ago
> This is my point, I think these academic researchers and common people have no idea what they are getting into. I don't think that's true. Most people knew smoking was bad for you long before the medical establish said so, ditto for opiates. The only folks who "don't know what they are getting into", are recreational users lying to themselves. That's no reason to dismiss a whole class of drugs that could potentially help people.
- mwattsun 5y ago
  I'd be the last person to dismiss the benefits, but as the old adage goes "all things in moderation" and there's also no reason to dismiss long-term effects because you did a small study. You could run this study exactly as is except with low doses of alcohol and also find there are no short of long-term detrimental effects.