3 ms·

Psychedelics seem very promising for the treatment of PTSD at some point down the line, but it’s not even close to studied enough. E.g. a recent promising stud

by jnovek 5y ago

Psychedelics seem very promising for the treatment of PTSD at some point down the line, but it’s not even close to studied enough. E.g. a recent promising study in Nature was 90 participants. Taking street MDMA is not the same as being administered MDMA in a clinical setting as an aid to talk therapy. I am enthusiastic about the advancement of research in this area and frustrated that it was delayed for so long due to political reasons, but please keep in mind that people with mood disorders or trauma can be desperate and may not make the best choices for themselves on their own.

loceng 5y ago
Are you familiar with the Maps.org study and results? 100 participants with 17.5 years average of treatment resistant PTSD. The placebo at the end of 1 year: 80% had no improvement, 20% some [expected], the group who did just 2-3 sessions with therapeutic dose of MDMA (100-120mg) at the end of 1 year: 80% no longer qualified for PTSD diagnostic, 20% had some or no improvement; MAPS released/published their 69 page guide for therapists - the two main important components being varied music selection (with more specific definition/explanation given), and an empathetic listener - someone present who will actually fully listen and respond whole-heartedly if the client needs to share something. Your final sentence also rings true for any remedy including SSRIs which many people have been harmed by, likewise your pointing out to this research not advancing due to political reasons - including system and regulatory capture - can be applied to existing treatments that were approved but perhaps should not have been; the conspiracy hypothesis that's becoming mainstream is that things like MDMA, psychedelics et al, were suppressed by for-profit industrial complexes via "the war on drugs" because pharma's patented daily-use recurring business model products couldn't compete with the very cheap to make, administer "2-3 times per year" chemicals that don't have anything close to the same "side" effect profile. You can see how this regulatory capture still has a hold in Canada for the alcohol industry, where alcohol's a known carcinogen, and as a society we put warnings on tobacco products but no such warnings on alcohol - and this isn't the only incongruence in Canadian policy/culture.

by jnovek 5y ago

loceng 5y ago

Are you familiar with the Maps.org study and results? 100 participants with 17.5 years average of treatment resistant PTSD. The placebo at the end of 1 year: 80% had no improvement, 20% some [expected], the group who did just 2-3 sessions with therapeutic dose of MDMA (100-120mg) at the end of 1 year: 80% no longer qualified for PTSD diagnostic, 20% had some or no improvement; MAPS released/published their 69 page guide for therapists - the two main important components being varied music selection (with more specific definition/explanation given), and an empathetic listener - someone present who will actually fully listen and respond whole-heartedly if the client needs to share something. Your final sentence also rings true for any remedy including SSRIs which many people have been harmed by, likewise your pointing out to this research not advancing due to political reasons - including system and regulatory capture - can be applied to existing treatments that were approved but perhaps should not have been; the conspiracy hypothesis that's becoming mainstream is that things like MDMA, psychedelics et al, were suppressed by for-profit industrial complexes via "the war on drugs" because pharma's patented daily-use recurring business model products couldn't compete with the very cheap to make, administer "2-3 times per year" chemicals that don't have anything close to the same "side" effect profile. You can see how this regulatory capture still has a hold in Canada for the alcohol industry, where alcohol's a known carcinogen, and as a society we put warnings on tobacco products but no such warnings on alcohol - and this isn't the only incongruence in Canadian policy/culture.