4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- jklinger410 5y ago
  I don't think the point of HN is for people to share scientific articles and then for the comments section to be like "I disagree because of my personal experiences." Where does a conversation that uses personal anecdotes to refute scientific evidence even go? That's not adding anything to the conversation _at all_. Hacker News is where I go for intelligent discussion. Literally anyone can hop on the internet and say "hmm...I disagree because this one time..." and I tend to stay away from places that foster those kinds of value-less conversations.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    I don't agree. I've never taken psilocybin, and I'm interested to hear the subjective experiences of folks who have, in addition to reading scientific studies, so this does add to the conversation. If I only wanted to read the study, then I'd subscribe to the Journal of Psychopharmacology. However, there are some (in my opinion) huge flaws in this study and its presentation: 1. This study was conducted on a small sample (60 people who received the psilocybin, and addition 29 who received the placebo - of whom 4 did not actually complete the study). 2. The study looked at short term effects and followed up at '29 or 85 days', (my emphasis). I'm not sure that I would be comfortable saying there had been 'no detrimental effects' after less than a month. 3. The study limits the scope of 'detrimental effects' to cognitive functioning or emotional processing. 4. The study was supervised and all participants took part in mandatory preparation and therapy sessions. 5. All of the participants were self-selected, and 35 participants had already taken psilocybin out of the 89 total participants (including those who had taken the placebo), which is about 13 times higher than the estimated population lifetime use in the UK. 6. Importantly in conjunction with point 5, participants were screened for pre-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, meaning a highly significant proportion of participants had already taken psilocybin without detrimental effect at least once before, and other non-first time users who had experienced detrimental effects previously would have been excluded from the study. 7. Four participants in the placebo arm did not complete the study, meaning the control group was only 25 people. 8. Efficacy of blinding was not assessed, and given the nature of psilocybin and the fact that up to 41% of the people who completed the study had taken psilocybin before, it seems quite likely that a significant proportion of the participants were unblinded. 9. Particularly worrying in the study is the statement: "An AE [Adverse Event] of substance induced psychotic disorder was reported for a participant who became behaviourally disinhibited during the acute drug experience. After a medical assessment, 2.5 mg oromucosal midazolam was administered. This event was not considered to be an SAE [Serious Adverse Event]." It would be unusual to administer buccal midazolam to someone who was not experiencing any 'detrimental effects'. In a study which is potentially only looking at 25 people taking psilocybin for the first time[0] at low doses, I don't think we can really discount personal anecdotes, especially when they're clearly and properly presented as such. [0]: Admittedly worst-case scenario where all of the placebo group turn out to have never taken psilocybin before.

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.

jklinger410 5y ago
I don't think the point of HN is for people to share scientific articles and then for the comments section to be like "I disagree because of my personal experiences." Where does a conversation that uses personal anecdotes to refute scientific evidence even go? That's not adding anything to the conversation _at all_. Hacker News is where I go for intelligent discussion. Literally anyone can hop on the internet and say "hmm...I disagree because this one time..." and I tend to stay away from places that foster those kinds of value-less conversations.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  I don't agree. I've never taken psilocybin, and I'm interested to hear the subjective experiences of folks who have, in addition to reading scientific studies, so this does add to the conversation. If I only wanted to read the study, then I'd subscribe to the Journal of Psychopharmacology. However, there are some (in my opinion) huge flaws in this study and its presentation: 1. This study was conducted on a small sample (60 people who received the psilocybin, and addition 29 who received the placebo - of whom 4 did not actually complete the study). 2. The study looked at short term effects and followed up at '29 or 85 days', (my emphasis). I'm not sure that I would be comfortable saying there had been 'no detrimental effects' after less than a month. 3. The study limits the scope of 'detrimental effects' to cognitive functioning or emotional processing. 4. The study was supervised and all participants took part in mandatory preparation and therapy sessions. 5. All of the participants were self-selected, and 35 participants had already taken psilocybin out of the 89 total participants (including those who had taken the placebo), which is about 13 times higher than the estimated population lifetime use in the UK. 6. Importantly in conjunction with point 5, participants were screened for pre-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, meaning a highly significant proportion of participants had already taken psilocybin without detrimental effect at least once before, and other non-first time users who had experienced detrimental effects previously would have been excluded from the study. 7. Four participants in the placebo arm did not complete the study, meaning the control group was only 25 people. 8. Efficacy of blinding was not assessed, and given the nature of psilocybin and the fact that up to 41% of the people who completed the study had taken psilocybin before, it seems quite likely that a significant proportion of the participants were unblinded. 9. Particularly worrying in the study is the statement: "An AE [Adverse Event] of substance induced psychotic disorder was reported for a participant who became behaviourally disinhibited during the acute drug experience. After a medical assessment, 2.5 mg oromucosal midazolam was administered. This event was not considered to be an SAE [Serious Adverse Event]." It would be unusual to administer buccal midazolam to someone who was not experiencing any 'detrimental effects'. In a study which is potentially only looking at 25 people taking psilocybin for the first time[0] at low doses, I don't think we can really discount personal anecdotes, especially when they're clearly and properly presented as such. [0]: Admittedly worst-case scenario where all of the placebo group turn out to have never taken psilocybin before.