18 ms·

I doubt this, and I think it's detrimental to state so in the long run. I used Psilocybin, and it was worth it. I would recommand people to give it a try, and

I doubt this, and I think it's detrimental to state so in the long run. I used Psilocybin, and it was worth it. I would recommand people to give it a try, and I helped people around me, including one parent, to take it. Yet. Every time I took it, I could feel my speech ability to decline for a while. The side effects faded slowly, and disapeared eventually every time. But traces of it are noticeable after even a month or two sometimes. It's like when people claimed that marijuana was not addictive. The deny didn't help at all. I know of several people that are addicted to smoking pot now. It's a negative side effect on their life. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Powerful products have powerful effects, and this means some harm can exist. Yes, psilocybin is way safer than the reputation is has been given in the 70'. Yes, taking it (in the right conditions) can benefit you a lot. But pretending there is zero detrimental effects is wishful thinking and will lead to people abusing the thing, believing it's just funny candy, and they may end up damaged.

shrimpx 5y ago
> marijuana was not addictive It's "not addictive" in the sense that physical withdrawal symptoms are minimal compared to booze, nicotine, and other drugs. But you can make a daily habit out of anything pleasurable and ruin your life around it. I've seen people ruin their lives with both gaming and gambling habits.
giantg2 5y ago
I think there are some other rare side effects, like vision abnormalities. The proper way to phrase their findings is that psilocybin has a favorable safety profile and should be studied in more detail with larger numbers of participants.
Quarrelsome 5y ago
> It's like when people claimed that marijuana was not addictive. I quit both weed and nicotine and only the nicotine was the problem to shift. Weed can be habitual, sure but there's a huge difference in physical and habitual addiction.
- tudelo 5y ago
  Quitting nicotine is absurdly overblown. I'm sure me saying this will annoy somebody, but I think it's much more of a habit than a physical addiction and people hide behind the physical addiction as an excuse. Maybe if you smoke a pack a day it is a different beast but daily smoking is really not hard to kick.
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    Maybe it is overblown, I can generally go a while without a smoke, and could probably quit with relative ease if I wanted to. Surely it’s no heroin withdraw and certainly not as bad as alcohol withdraw, but it’s the quickest I’ve ever come to developing any physical addiction symptoms. The withdraw is real too, but mostly bearable.
  - Quarrelsome 5y ago
    well it took me ~four years to comfortably quit nicotine from wanting to, to absolute zero. Weed is considerably easier to turn on and off whenever. I get that we're all weird but for some people there is a significant difference here.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      I wonder how much of that is addiction and how much is just forgetting what something is like. I have 1 cigar a month (never more, occasionally less) and have done so for about 12 years. I suppose some may say that means I'm addicted. Or does it mean I simply enjoy a cigar? I honestly don't know the threshold. When I see a cigar I'm usually reminded of the enjoyment; I guess that is some addiction in and of itself. It calls into question, what is a memory in and of itself -- and if memories and the desire to relive them are just an incarnation of addiction.
      - Quarrelsome 5y ago
        IMHO addiction is where you don't feel like you can adequately function without. For a daily nicotine smoker, being without is a negative consequence that seriously alters mood and efficacy. This is what makes that sort of addiction particularly ravenous as opposed to your measured once a month.
gspr 5y ago
> It's like when people claimed that marijuana was not addictive. Marijuana is not physically addictive. That was and is also the reasonable claim made by reasonable people. Then lots of people seems to have conflated this claim with psychological addictiveness. I claim that HN isn't physically addictive. The fact that it is psychologically addictive doesn't amount to me "pretending".
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  If you smoke daily, and frequently and then quit, you do experience intense cravings and unpleasant physical side effects.
  - gspr 5y ago
    The former is psychological. On the latter: citation needed.
    - wswope 5y ago
      “Physical addiction” isn’t really an academic term - but you are misinformed: physical dependence on cannabis is a very well-established phenomenon. Dozens and dozens of citations for you: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&q=physical+dependence+cannabis https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&q=physi...
      - gspr 5y ago
        Ah, there does seem to be some relating to appetite – interesting. The rest is again psychological, or from the 80s. Got anything from this millenium and clearly physical?
        wswope 5y ago
        Sure, from the same search, filtered by date: > Flawed drug awareness campaigns of the 1990s claimed that cannabis could be psychologically addictive but not physically addictive like other drugs. However, cannabis does predictably cause physical dependence—the hallmarks of which are tolerance and withdrawal—and heavy users may have great difficulty in attempting to reduce or end their use, leading to compulsive, continued use and related consequences https://focus.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.focus.20180038 https://focus.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.foc...
Synaesthesia 5y ago
Marijuana is addictive, I know that many people will deny it, just like they say it's not unhealthy to smoke, it is, there is definitely harm done. That said it's almost impossible to abuse mushrooms, there just isn't a desire to redo them often and it doesn't work well anyway. I've never heard of someone being addicted to psilocybin. Sure while you're on them it can be very intoxicating, and temporary loss of speech abilities and all kinds of horrible feelings might occur, particularly in the beginning. Usually you feel better about it later. I think it has been shown to be the least harmful drug in studies and has proven itself to be not very harmful to people or society.
- emptyfile 5y ago
  >That said it's almost impossible to abuse mushrooms nonsense >there just isn't a desire to redo them often and it doesn't work well anyway. please don't talk about your anecdotes as if they were facts. go to any psytrance festival in europe and marvel at people tripping for a week straight >I've never heard of someone being addicted to psilocybin. and I've met bucket loads of people "addicted" to living in the unreality of psychedelics. I guess that's not being "addicted to psilocybin" but if the end result is eating mushrooms x times per week then the effect is the same
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    > please don’t talk about your anecdotes as if they were facts. Followed by multiple anecdotes…
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - adsfoiu1 5y ago
      I think their point is that anecdotes are not very valuable and then gave examples of anecdotes that differ as a way to show that individual experiences / perceptions can be vastly different, which isn't at odds with their original point.
    - 5y ago
spidersouris 5y ago
> Yes, taking it (in the right conditions) can benefit you a lot. What are these benefits?
- diatomaceous_ 5y ago
  It obviously needs more formal research, but anecdotal reports of tryptamine-based psychedelics indicate strong potential for stress management and/or general mental health recovery. https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms
- paraph1n 5y ago
  Preliminary clinical research shows that it can help with depression and drug addiction, among other ailments. Anecdotal benefits I've experienced (as a typically healthy person): - Improved mood for a least a couple months (happier, more awake/aware, calmer, less fatigue, more motivated) - Reduced feelings of stress and anxiety - Increased empathy for others - Increased self-awareness, in particular of bad habits. This in turn helps me improve my diet as well as keep good physical/mental exercise habits. - Increased creativity and openness to new ideas.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > Preliminary clinical research shows that it can help with depression and drug addiction, among other ailments. Virtually all of the clinical trials and robust research studies psilocybin in conjunction with 10 or more non-psychedelic therapy sessions. It's a mistake to think that you can ignore the intense therapy that goes into these studies and focus only on the psilocybin.
    - paraph1n 5y ago
      I agree completely and did not mean to imply otherwise (hence my phrasing of "it can help with" rather than "it can cure"). Yes, that research involved combination treatment of psilocybin alongside psychotherapy. That said, the anecdotal effects I listed are just from personal use without psychotherapy. But of course they're anecdotal :)
diatomaceous_ 5y ago
Your experience is an anecdotal exception, not the norm. I encourage you to actually read up on the pharmacology of psilocybin: https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms.
- aeternum 5y ago
  It only takes a single but valid 'anecdote' to disprove a thesis as strong as 'Psilocybin has no short or long term detrimental effects' There is no exception allowed for a statement like that.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mansoon 5y ago
    Breathing has the long term negative effect of exposing your DNA to oxygen radicals.
aeturnum 5y ago
> But pretending there is zero detrimental effects is wishful thinking and will lead to people abusing the thing, believing it's just funny candy, and they may end up damaged. I think you're mostly reacting to the framing of this headline, which isn't accurately stating the finding of the study. It would be more accurate to say the study "did not find any short or long term negative effects" which is not the same as a positive assertion that such effects do not exist. This is a similar level of safety as you might find with aspirin or acetaminophen - both of which could be fairly described as not having short or long term negative effects and which can have serious health consequences if used incorrectly [edit: I said "if abused" which is the wrong way to put it]. > There is no such thing as a free lunch. Powerful products have powerful effects, and this means some harm can exist. There's nothing in this study that contradicts this idea - because studies like this don't claim to detect every form of harm. Instead, they look for particular forms of relatively objective harm. Another example to consider would be SSRIs: they tend to increase suicide attempts when patients start taking them. That's the kind of harm this study would find! But - even if a patient doesn't experience suicidal ideation - no doctor would suggest that it logically follows that patient should certainly go on SSRIs. The choice is always more complex than that.
- darth_avocado 5y ago
  > did not find any short or long term negative effects I think what the original comment refers to is that measuring long term side effects is kind of impossible without waiting a long time and wishful thinking.
  - aeturnum 5y ago
    I mean, I understand why someone might say that, but I think that's actually a critique of western medicine in general rather than this study in particular. In that I think it's understood that studies like this are measuring harms with commonly understood (but hard to rigorously define because you don't know what you don't know) limits. We've found new harms for medicines or treatments many times, and in each case we generally had previous studies that missed those harms. It's always possible, so calling it out about mushrooms in particular feels odd because the same critique applies to the western approach to every other medicine.
photochemsyn 5y ago
I'd read the study conclusions again, in particular the dosages and circumstances: > "Psilocybin, in 10mg or 25mg doses, has no short-term or long-term detrimental effects in healthy people... The research, published in The Journal of Psychopharmacology, is an essential first step in demonstrating the safety and feasibility of psilocybin – a psychedelic drug isolated from the Psilocybe mushroom – for use within controlled settings alongside talking therapy as a potential treatment for a range of mental health conditions, including treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and PTSD.' Notice that very large doses were not studied, and the studies were conducted under controlled settings, with one-on-one support from a trained psychotherapist, in groups of up to six people simultaneously. As the study was not flawed, then, under these conditions, psilocybin certainly seems like a safe and effective option for treatment.
- druadh 5y ago
  I'd be curious to know how many mg's an average sized magic mushroom contains. I've taken a stem and had an enjoyable couple hours. I've taken several mushrooms 3.5-7g and had a rather intense set of experiences that I'll never forget, along with some very dark and scary moments -- And I can see how these moments would permanently change someone (even a 'healthy' person). Ultimately, how many mg's of psilocybin does an average magic mushroom contain? The very first line of text in a google search said 10mg psilocybin per 1g of mushroom. 35-70mg psilocybin for the two standard street dosages - so on the street, your minimum suggested dosage is, at minimum, like 40% stronger than this study looked into? Could make for some less than favorable experiences for people hearing about this 2nd hand and not looking into it. I wonder if the researchers in this study had people consume mushrooms on an empty or full stomach, as well. Also makes a big difference in terms of intensity and duration (in my experience). And like you mentioned, those in the study also had 1-on-1 support from a trained professional.. On the street, you've got your goofball friends and maybe one wise, old trip-sitter if you're lucky. And honestly, I'd prefer a seasoned trip-sitter whose taken the drug many times over a trained professional who has is much less likely to have that kind of firsthand experience. The company you keep can have just as much of an impact as the potency of the hallucinogen (again, in my experience).
jklinger410 5y ago
> I doubt this, and I think Wow man, can't wait to read your peer reviewed study on the topic! I'm going to give this thread a few more hours before decide to quit reading Hacker News comments forever.
- zepto 5y ago
  > I'm going to give this thread a few more hours before decide to quit reading Hacker News comments forever. What do you anticipate happening in those few hours?
  - jklinger410 5y ago
    Better comments at the top, worse comments at the bottom. As of my response this was the highest rated comment.
    - zepto 5y ago
      It may not have been. As far as I know comments aren’t just ordered by rating, but also by recency so that new comments have at least some visibility.
- cjohansson 5y ago
  Do you have a peer reviewed study to support your opinion about Hacker News comments?
  - jklinger410 5y ago
    Ah shit, you got me!
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  I wonder what you think the point of HN is? Do you think that this is a community for sharing peer-reviewed studies? If you're not interested in reading opinions and comments from an open forum that anyone can join, then maybe it is better for you to stop reading these comments. For me, I think OP's comment was completely reasonable, and at any rate, the headline with which the conclusions of this study appears is at best incomplete, and deserves to be criticised.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
alexnewman 5y ago
Totally agree. No free lunch especially in psychedelics. That being said , great to see the research
washadjeffmad 5y ago
Mushroom drawl is a pretty classical tell of usage, but I wouldn't consider it a de facto detriment. For some people, being a little slower to speak means they're more careful with their thoughts, less likely to be carried away by engagement or perpetuate useless ideas, and more prone to patient reflection. Mushrooms can't magically confer any of those skills, but some things are easier to learn when we're not leaning on only what comes most naturally to us.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > Mushroom drawl is a pretty classical tell of usage, but I wouldn't consider it a de facto detriment. > For some people, being a little slower to speak means they're more careful with their thoughts, It takes some wild mental gymnastics to try to flip a drug-induced speech impediment into a good thing. It's also fascinating to watch how some of the psychedelic enthusiasts will vehemently dismiss the idea of mushroom-induced speech issues, while others will readily acknowledge that "mushroom drawl" is a classic, well-known phenomenon but it's okay because it's good actually.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  > For some people, being a little slower to speak means they're more careful with their thoughts, less likely to be carried away by engagement or perpetuate useless ideas, and more prone to patient reflection. I speak fast when my mind is sharp and active, and speak slow when I am tired or sick and can't think straight. Bet you most people do the same. So you probably should read it that he had long term retardation of the brain, not a calm nature.
nimbius 5y ago
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of abject confusion in this realm as fifty mind numbing years of the US Drug War sponsored by RAID Shadow Legends has rendered any independent attempt at scientific validation of the conditions applications and hazards of most recreational narcotics a fever dream of retraction, deflection, and outright lies. For 50 years psychedelic drugs were the devils dingaling and always accompanied by a well-wishing naysayer who insisted the other shoe was filled with the cloven hoof of Mephistopheles himself. This is quality peer-reviewed research, the same kind used to ostensibly validate things like hydrocodone and Flintstones vitamins...but this sort of thing is happening alongside the haggard burro of western drug policy which makes it all the more precious. Any knowledge of the conditions and terms related to something like this as it pertains to PTSD is invaluable as 30 years ago such seditious mumblings would get you branded a communist hippie. so yeah, terms and conditions apply and just as with everything else, theres a ladder of risk, but castigating the machine shop for their nefarious chainsaw sure to rain terror upon the good fae of the woods is a little silly.
perth 5y ago
I think what most people are referring to with cannabis, in terms of it not being addictive, is physiological dependence. Cannabis has very little in terms of withdrawal symptoms, and thus has low propensity towards physiological dependence. I’ve heard people state depression for a few days as one of the few withdrawal symptoms for heavy users. So while the people you may know may be addicted, it’s not because of a physiological dependence but a mental one.
- pishpash 5y ago
  Depression and mental issues are physiological (in the brain). Otherwise there would be no psychiatric medication.
  - Madmallard 5y ago
    It's not that simple.
emptysongglass 5y ago
> There is no such thing as a free lunch. This doesn't mean anything. It's not evidence of anything. You can't go to court and argue there's no such thing as a free lunch. There's free lunches out there, literally, somebody puts a literal free lunch out next to the dumpster for the less fortunate all the time. There's losers and winners with no reason to be found for why. Some guy buys Bitcoin at 5 bucks, becomes a billionaire and doesn't turn into the archetypal power-mad lunatic burning his fortunes on lambos. Here's the actual woo: desperate attempts to overlay patterns of meaning to a universe that does not subscribe to Abrahamic values. Some people will take psychedelics and have enduring negative impressions, sometimes for the rest of their life. Others, like myself, will use it to shapechange out of a history of abuse by their parents. No one can know which of the cards they'll pick. But I can tell you, from the many I have directly known to take it, a fraction succumbed to permanent, negative, distorted beliefs. Some got a free lunch, some few did not.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  No free lunch carries some weight in this context. If there is a chemical that has a very positive effect in humans, there is probably a reason that humans didn't evolve to produce that chemical or exist in the state that the chemical induces. That reason could be related to what you suggest, that the actual effect is a mixed bag and doesn't wind up worth it. It could be that our environment has changed to make it beneficial and evolution hasn't caught up. It could be that dreams are already the same thing and we're not sleeping enough or the right way, so psychadelics are filling the gap. In general, though, it's that the benefits are outweighed by costs. No free lunch is a reasonable prior in biology.
qwerty456127 5y ago
> Every time I took it, I could feel my speech ability to decline for a while. I would bet big money it will do the opposite to at least some people having speech impairment conditions before they take it.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  I am willing to take that bet at sufficiently "big money".

shrimpx 5y ago

> marijuana was not addictive It's "not addictive" in the sense that physical withdrawal symptoms are minimal compared to booze, nicotine, and other drugs. But you can make a daily habit out of anything pleasurable and ruin your life around it. I've seen people ruin their lives with both gaming and gambling habits.

giantg2 5y ago

I think there are some other rare side effects, like vision abnormalities. The proper way to phrase their findings is that psilocybin has a favorable safety profile and should be studied in more detail with larger numbers of participants.

Quarrelsome 5y ago

> It's like when people claimed that marijuana was not addictive. I quit both weed and nicotine and only the nicotine was the problem to shift. Weed can be habitual, sure but there's a huge difference in physical and habitual addiction.

tudelo 5y ago
Quitting nicotine is absurdly overblown. I'm sure me saying this will annoy somebody, but I think it's much more of a habit than a physical addiction and people hide behind the physical addiction as an excuse. Maybe if you smoke a pack a day it is a different beast but daily smoking is really not hard to kick.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  Maybe it is overblown, I can generally go a while without a smoke, and could probably quit with relative ease if I wanted to. Surely it’s no heroin withdraw and certainly not as bad as alcohol withdraw, but it’s the quickest I’ve ever come to developing any physical addiction symptoms. The withdraw is real too, but mostly bearable.
- Quarrelsome 5y ago
  well it took me ~four years to comfortably quit nicotine from wanting to, to absolute zero. Weed is considerably easier to turn on and off whenever. I get that we're all weird but for some people there is a significant difference here.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    I wonder how much of that is addiction and how much is just forgetting what something is like. I have 1 cigar a month (never more, occasionally less) and have done so for about 12 years. I suppose some may say that means I'm addicted. Or does it mean I simply enjoy a cigar? I honestly don't know the threshold. When I see a cigar I'm usually reminded of the enjoyment; I guess that is some addiction in and of itself. It calls into question, what is a memory in and of itself -- and if memories and the desire to relive them are just an incarnation of addiction.
    - Quarrelsome 5y ago
      IMHO addiction is where you don't feel like you can adequately function without. For a daily nicotine smoker, being without is a negative consequence that seriously alters mood and efficacy. This is what makes that sort of addiction particularly ravenous as opposed to your measured once a month.

gspr 5y ago

> It's like when people claimed that marijuana was not addictive. Marijuana is not physically addictive. That was and is also the reasonable claim made by reasonable people. Then lots of people seems to have conflated this claim with psychological addictiveness. I claim that HN isn't physically addictive. The fact that it is psychologically addictive doesn't amount to me "pretending".

Synaesthesia 5y ago
If you smoke daily, and frequently and then quit, you do experience intense cravings and unpleasant physical side effects.
- gspr 5y ago
  The former is psychological. On the latter: citation needed.
  - wswope 5y ago
    “Physical addiction” isn’t really an academic term - but you are misinformed: physical dependence on cannabis is a very well-established phenomenon. Dozens and dozens of citations for you: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&q=physical+dependence+cannabis https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&q=physi...
    - gspr 5y ago
      Ah, there does seem to be some relating to appetite – interesting. The rest is again psychological, or from the 80s. Got anything from this millenium and clearly physical?
      - wswope 5y ago
        Sure, from the same search, filtered by date: > Flawed drug awareness campaigns of the 1990s claimed that cannabis could be psychologically addictive but not physically addictive like other drugs. However, cannabis does predictably cause physical dependence—the hallmarks of which are tolerance and withdrawal—and heavy users may have great difficulty in attempting to reduce or end their use, leading to compulsive, continued use and related consequences https://focus.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.focus.20180038 https://focus.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.foc...

Synaesthesia 5y ago

Marijuana is addictive, I know that many people will deny it, just like they say it's not unhealthy to smoke, it is, there is definitely harm done. That said it's almost impossible to abuse mushrooms, there just isn't a desire to redo them often and it doesn't work well anyway. I've never heard of someone being addicted to psilocybin. Sure while you're on them it can be very intoxicating, and temporary loss of speech abilities and all kinds of horrible feelings might occur, particularly in the beginning. Usually you feel better about it later. I think it has been shown to be the least harmful drug in studies and has proven itself to be not very harmful to people or society.

emptyfile 5y ago
>That said it's almost impossible to abuse mushrooms nonsense >there just isn't a desire to redo them often and it doesn't work well anyway. please don't talk about your anecdotes as if they were facts. go to any psytrance festival in europe and marvel at people tripping for a week straight >I've never heard of someone being addicted to psilocybin. and I've met bucket loads of people "addicted" to living in the unreality of psychedelics. I guess that's not being "addicted to psilocybin" but if the end result is eating mushrooms x times per week then the effect is the same
- the_only_law 5y ago
  > please don’t talk about your anecdotes as if they were facts. Followed by multiple anecdotes…
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - adsfoiu1 5y ago
    I think their point is that anecdotes are not very valuable and then gave examples of anecdotes that differ as a way to show that individual experiences / perceptions can be vastly different, which isn't at odds with their original point.
  - 5y ago

spidersouris 5y ago

> Yes, taking it (in the right conditions) can benefit you a lot. What are these benefits?

diatomaceous_ 5y ago
It obviously needs more formal research, but anecdotal reports of tryptamine-based psychedelics indicate strong potential for stress management and/or general mental health recovery. https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms
paraph1n 5y ago
Preliminary clinical research shows that it can help with depression and drug addiction, among other ailments. Anecdotal benefits I've experienced (as a typically healthy person): - Improved mood for a least a couple months (happier, more awake/aware, calmer, less fatigue, more motivated) - Reduced feelings of stress and anxiety - Increased empathy for others - Increased self-awareness, in particular of bad habits. This in turn helps me improve my diet as well as keep good physical/mental exercise habits. - Increased creativity and openness to new ideas.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > Preliminary clinical research shows that it can help with depression and drug addiction, among other ailments. Virtually all of the clinical trials and robust research studies psilocybin in conjunction with 10 or more non-psychedelic therapy sessions. It's a mistake to think that you can ignore the intense therapy that goes into these studies and focus only on the psilocybin.
  - paraph1n 5y ago
    I agree completely and did not mean to imply otherwise (hence my phrasing of "it can help with" rather than "it can cure"). Yes, that research involved combination treatment of psilocybin alongside psychotherapy. That said, the anecdotal effects I listed are just from personal use without psychotherapy. But of course they're anecdotal :)

diatomaceous_ 5y ago

Your experience is an anecdotal exception, not the norm. I encourage you to actually read up on the pharmacology of psilocybin: https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushrooms.

aeternum 5y ago
It only takes a single but valid 'anecdote' to disprove a thesis as strong as 'Psilocybin has no short or long term detrimental effects' There is no exception allowed for a statement like that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mansoon 5y ago
  Breathing has the long term negative effect of exposing your DNA to oxygen radicals.

aeturnum 5y ago

> But pretending there is zero detrimental effects is wishful thinking and will lead to people abusing the thing, believing it's just funny candy, and they may end up damaged. I think you're mostly reacting to the framing of this headline, which isn't accurately stating the finding of the study. It would be more accurate to say the study "did not find any short or long term negative effects" which is not the same as a positive assertion that such effects do not exist. This is a similar level of safety as you might find with aspirin or acetaminophen - both of which could be fairly described as not having short or long term negative effects and which can have serious health consequences if used incorrectly [edit: I said "if abused" which is the wrong way to put it]. > There is no such thing as a free lunch. Powerful products have powerful effects, and this means some harm can exist. There's nothing in this study that contradicts this idea - because studies like this don't claim to detect every form of harm. Instead, they look for particular forms of relatively objective harm. Another example to consider would be SSRIs: they tend to increase suicide attempts when patients start taking them. That's the kind of harm this study would find! But - even if a patient doesn't experience suicidal ideation - no doctor would suggest that it logically follows that patient should certainly go on SSRIs. The choice is always more complex than that.

darth_avocado 5y ago
> did not find any short or long term negative effects I think what the original comment refers to is that measuring long term side effects is kind of impossible without waiting a long time and wishful thinking.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  I mean, I understand why someone might say that, but I think that's actually a critique of western medicine in general rather than this study in particular. In that I think it's understood that studies like this are measuring harms with commonly understood (but hard to rigorously define because you don't know what you don't know) limits. We've found new harms for medicines or treatments many times, and in each case we generally had previous studies that missed those harms. It's always possible, so calling it out about mushrooms in particular feels odd because the same critique applies to the western approach to every other medicine.

photochemsyn 5y ago

I'd read the study conclusions again, in particular the dosages and circumstances: > "Psilocybin, in 10mg or 25mg doses, has no short-term or long-term detrimental effects in healthy people... The research, published in The Journal of Psychopharmacology, is an essential first step in demonstrating the safety and feasibility of psilocybin – a psychedelic drug isolated from the Psilocybe mushroom – for use within controlled settings alongside talking therapy as a potential treatment for a range of mental health conditions, including treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and PTSD.' Notice that very large doses were not studied, and the studies were conducted under controlled settings, with one-on-one support from a trained psychotherapist, in groups of up to six people simultaneously. As the study was not flawed, then, under these conditions, psilocybin certainly seems like a safe and effective option for treatment.

druadh 5y ago
I'd be curious to know how many mg's an average sized magic mushroom contains. I've taken a stem and had an enjoyable couple hours. I've taken several mushrooms 3.5-7g and had a rather intense set of experiences that I'll never forget, along with some very dark and scary moments -- And I can see how these moments would permanently change someone (even a 'healthy' person). Ultimately, how many mg's of psilocybin does an average magic mushroom contain? The very first line of text in a google search said 10mg psilocybin per 1g of mushroom. 35-70mg psilocybin for the two standard street dosages - so on the street, your minimum suggested dosage is, at minimum, like 40% stronger than this study looked into? Could make for some less than favorable experiences for people hearing about this 2nd hand and not looking into it. I wonder if the researchers in this study had people consume mushrooms on an empty or full stomach, as well. Also makes a big difference in terms of intensity and duration (in my experience). And like you mentioned, those in the study also had 1-on-1 support from a trained professional.. On the street, you've got your goofball friends and maybe one wise, old trip-sitter if you're lucky. And honestly, I'd prefer a seasoned trip-sitter whose taken the drug many times over a trained professional who has is much less likely to have that kind of firsthand experience. The company you keep can have just as much of an impact as the potency of the hallucinogen (again, in my experience).

jklinger410 5y ago

> I doubt this, and I think Wow man, can't wait to read your peer reviewed study on the topic! I'm going to give this thread a few more hours before decide to quit reading Hacker News comments forever.

zepto 5y ago
> I'm going to give this thread a few more hours before decide to quit reading Hacker News comments forever. What do you anticipate happening in those few hours?
- jklinger410 5y ago
  Better comments at the top, worse comments at the bottom. As of my response this was the highest rated comment.
  - zepto 5y ago
    It may not have been. As far as I know comments aren’t just ordered by rating, but also by recency so that new comments have at least some visibility.
cjohansson 5y ago
Do you have a peer reviewed study to support your opinion about Hacker News comments?
- jklinger410 5y ago
  Ah shit, you got me!
d1sxeyes 5y ago
I wonder what you think the point of HN is? Do you think that this is a community for sharing peer-reviewed studies? If you're not interested in reading opinions and comments from an open forum that anyone can join, then maybe it is better for you to stop reading these comments. For me, I think OP's comment was completely reasonable, and at any rate, the headline with which the conclusions of this study appears is at best incomplete, and deserves to be criticised.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

alexnewman 5y ago

Totally agree. No free lunch especially in psychedelics. That being said , great to see the research

washadjeffmad 5y ago

Mushroom drawl is a pretty classical tell of usage, but I wouldn't consider it a de facto detriment. For some people, being a little slower to speak means they're more careful with their thoughts, less likely to be carried away by engagement or perpetuate useless ideas, and more prone to patient reflection. Mushrooms can't magically confer any of those skills, but some things are easier to learn when we're not leaning on only what comes most naturally to us.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Mushroom drawl is a pretty classical tell of usage, but I wouldn't consider it a de facto detriment. > For some people, being a little slower to speak means they're more careful with their thoughts, It takes some wild mental gymnastics to try to flip a drug-induced speech impediment into a good thing. It's also fascinating to watch how some of the psychedelic enthusiasts will vehemently dismiss the idea of mushroom-induced speech issues, while others will readily acknowledge that "mushroom drawl" is a classic, well-known phenomenon but it's okay because it's good actually.
lostmsu 5y ago
> For some people, being a little slower to speak means they're more careful with their thoughts, less likely to be carried away by engagement or perpetuate useless ideas, and more prone to patient reflection. I speak fast when my mind is sharp and active, and speak slow when I am tired or sick and can't think straight. Bet you most people do the same. So you probably should read it that he had long term retardation of the brain, not a calm nature.

nimbius 5y ago

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of abject confusion in this realm as fifty mind numbing years of the US Drug War sponsored by RAID Shadow Legends has rendered any independent attempt at scientific validation of the conditions applications and hazards of most recreational narcotics a fever dream of retraction, deflection, and outright lies. For 50 years psychedelic drugs were the devils dingaling and always accompanied by a well-wishing naysayer who insisted the other shoe was filled with the cloven hoof of Mephistopheles himself. This is quality peer-reviewed research, the same kind used to ostensibly validate things like hydrocodone and Flintstones vitamins...but this sort of thing is happening alongside the haggard burro of western drug policy which makes it all the more precious. Any knowledge of the conditions and terms related to something like this as it pertains to PTSD is invaluable as 30 years ago such seditious mumblings would get you branded a communist hippie. so yeah, terms and conditions apply and just as with everything else, theres a ladder of risk, but castigating the machine shop for their nefarious chainsaw sure to rain terror upon the good fae of the woods is a little silly.

perth 5y ago

I think what most people are referring to with cannabis, in terms of it not being addictive, is physiological dependence. Cannabis has very little in terms of withdrawal symptoms, and thus has low propensity towards physiological dependence. I’ve heard people state depression for a few days as one of the few withdrawal symptoms for heavy users. So while the people you may know may be addicted, it’s not because of a physiological dependence but a mental one.

pishpash 5y ago
Depression and mental issues are physiological (in the brain). Otherwise there would be no psychiatric medication.
- Madmallard 5y ago
  It's not that simple.

emptysongglass 5y ago

> There is no such thing as a free lunch. This doesn't mean anything. It's not evidence of anything. You can't go to court and argue there's no such thing as a free lunch. There's free lunches out there, literally, somebody puts a literal free lunch out next to the dumpster for the less fortunate all the time. There's losers and winners with no reason to be found for why. Some guy buys Bitcoin at 5 bucks, becomes a billionaire and doesn't turn into the archetypal power-mad lunatic burning his fortunes on lambos. Here's the actual woo: desperate attempts to overlay patterns of meaning to a universe that does not subscribe to Abrahamic values. Some people will take psychedelics and have enduring negative impressions, sometimes for the rest of their life. Others, like myself, will use it to shapechange out of a history of abuse by their parents. No one can know which of the cards they'll pick. But I can tell you, from the many I have directly known to take it, a fraction succumbed to permanent, negative, distorted beliefs. Some got a free lunch, some few did not.

Stupulous 5y ago
No free lunch carries some weight in this context. If there is a chemical that has a very positive effect in humans, there is probably a reason that humans didn't evolve to produce that chemical or exist in the state that the chemical induces. That reason could be related to what you suggest, that the actual effect is a mixed bag and doesn't wind up worth it. It could be that our environment has changed to make it beneficial and evolution hasn't caught up. It could be that dreams are already the same thing and we're not sleeping enough or the right way, so psychadelics are filling the gap. In general, though, it's that the benefits are outweighed by costs. No free lunch is a reasonable prior in biology.

qwerty456127 5y ago

> Every time I took it, I could feel my speech ability to decline for a while. I would bet big money it will do the opposite to at least some people having speech impairment conditions before they take it.

lostmsu 5y ago
I am willing to take that bet at sufficiently "big money".